Posted on 01/25/2014 6:51:38 AM PST by GonzoII
Sola Scriptura – An Unbiblical Recipe for Confusion
Sola scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant. On a popular level, it simply meant, If a teaching isnt explicit in the Bible, then we dont accept it as doctrine! And it seemed so simple. And yet, I do not recall ever hearing a detailed teaching explicating it. It was always a given. Unchallenged. Diving deeper into its meaning, especially when I was challenged to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism, I found there to be no book specifically on the topic and no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors.
Once I got past the superficial, I had to try to answer real questions like, what role does tradition play? How explicit does a doctrine have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? How many times does it have to be mentioned in Scripture before it would be dogmatic? Where does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How do we know what the canon of Scripture is using the principle of sola scriptura? Who is authorized to write Scripture in the first place? When was the canon closed? Or, the best question of all: where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible? These questions and more were left virtually unanswered or left to the varying opinions of various Bible teachers.
The Protestant Response
In answer to this last question, “Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?” most Protestants will immediately respond as I did, by simply citing II Tm. 3:16:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
How can it get any plainer than that? Doesnt that say the Bible is all we need? Question answered.
The fact is: II Timothy 3or any other text of Scripturedoes not even hint at sola scriptura. It says Scripture is inspired and necessary to equip the man of God, but never does it say Scripture alone is all anyone needs. Well come back to this text in particular later. But in my experience as a Protestant, it was my attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism that led me to conclude: sola scriptura is 1) unreasonable 2) unbiblical and 3) unworkable.
Sola Scriptura is Unreasonable
When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authorityScripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Koran, and other books claim inspiration. This does not make them inspired. One must prove the point outside of the text itself to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Thus, the question remains: how do we know the various books of the Bible are inspired and therefore canonical? And remember: the Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura in the process.
II Tim. 3:16 is not a valid response to the question. The problems are manifold. Beyond the fact of circular reasoning, for example, I would point out the fact that this verse says all Scripture is inspired tells us nothing of what the canon consists. Just recently, I was speaking with a Protestant inquirer about this issue and he saw my point. He then said words to the effect of, I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth as Jesus said in Jn. 16:13. The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them to gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God. God would not leave us without his word to guide us.
That answer is much more Catholic than Protestant! Yes, Jn. 16:13 does say the Spirit will lead the apostlesand by allusion, the Churchinto all truth. But this verse has nothing to say about sola scriptura. Nor does it say a word about the nature or number of books in the canon. Catholics certainly agree that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures because the Catholic Church teaches that there is an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit. The obvious problem is my Protestant friend did not use sola scriptura as his guiding principle to arrive at his conclusion. How does, for example, Jn. 16:13 tell us that Hebrews was written by an apostolic writer and that it is inspired of God? We would ultimately have to rely on the infallibility of whoever “the Holy Spirit” is guiding to canonize the Bible so that they could not mishear what the Spirit was saying about which books of the Bible are truly inspired.
The fact is, the Bible does not and cannot give us the answer to this question about the canon. It is an historical fact that the Church used Sacred Tradition outside of Scripture for her criterion for the canon. And the early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue of the canon, also needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree on the whole matter.
In order to put this argument of my friend into perspective, can you imagine if a Catholic made a similar claim to demonstrate, say, Mary to be the Mother of God? We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth. Would the Protestant respond with a hearty, amen? I think not! I can almost hear the response. Show me in the Bible where Mary is the Mother of God! I dont want to hear about God guiding the Church! Wouldnt the same question remain for the Protestant concerning the canon? Show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc.
Will the Circle be Unbroken?
The Protestant response at this point is often an attempt to use the same argument against the Catholic. How do you know the Scriptures are inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular because you say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so and then say the Scriptures are inspired and infallible because the Church says so!
The Catholic Churchs position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so. The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. However, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact. However, this is not circular reasoning. When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired. As any reputable historian will tell you, the New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history. To deny the substance of the historical documents recorded therein would be absurd. However, one cannot deduce from this that they are inspired. There are many accurate historical documents that are not inspired. However, the Scriptures do give us accurate historical information whether one holds to their inspiration or not. Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and non-Christian writers like Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and more. It is on this basis that we can say it is an historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses. Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event (see Lk. 1:1-4, Jn. 21:18-19, 24-25, Acts 1:1-11, I Cr. 15:1-8).
Now, what do we find when we examine the historical record? Jesus Christas a matter of history–established a Church, not a book, to be the foundation of the Christian Faith (see Mt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18. Cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10,20-21; 4:11-15; I Tm. 3:15; Hb. 13:7,17, etc.). He said of his Church He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me (Lk. 10:16). The many books that comprise what we call the Bible never tell us crucial truths such as the fact that they are inspired, who can and cannot be the human authors of them, who authored them at all, or, as I said before, what the canon of Scripture is in the first place. And this is just to name a few examples. What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him (see Lk. 20:29-32, Mt. 10:40, 28:18-20). It was members of this Kingdomthe Churchthat would write the Scripture, preserve its many texts and eventually canonize it. The Scriptures cannot write or canonize themselves. To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle because one cannot determine what the scriptura is using the principle of sola scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical
Let us now consider the most common text used by Protestants to prove sola scriptura, II Tm. 3:16, which I quoted above:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The problem with using this text as such is threefold: 1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. 2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. 3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture.
1. What’s Old is Not New
Let us examine the context of the passage by reading the two preceding verses:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood (italics added) you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
In context, this passage does not refer to the New Testament at all. None of the New Testament books had been written when St. Timothy was a child! To claim this verse in order to authenticate a book, say, the book of Revelation, when it had most likely not even been written yet, is more than a stretch. That is going far beyond what the text actually claims.
2. The Trouble With Sola
As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24, emphasis added). Analogously, when the Bible says Scripture is inspired and profitable for the man of God, to be equipped for every good work, we Catholics believe it. However, the text of II Tim. 3:16 never says Scripture alone. There is no sola to be found here either! Even if we granted II Tm. 3:16 was talking about all of Scripture, it never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith. A rule of faith, to be sure! But not the sole rule of faith.
James 1:4 illustrates clearly the problem with Protestant exegesis of II Tim. 3:16:
And let steadfastness (patience) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to II Tm. 3:16 we would have to say that all we need is patience to be perfected. We dont need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, etc.
Of course, any Christian would immediately say this is absurd. And of course it is. But James emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than St. Pauls emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola to be found in either text. Sola patientia would be just as much an error as is sola scriptura.
3. Traditions of Men Vs. The Tradition of God
Not only is the Bible silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but Scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral Tradition to be just as much the word of God as is Scripture. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, St. Paul said:
And we also thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God (I Thess. 2:13)
According to St. Paul, the spoken word from the apostles was just as much the word of God as was the later written word. Further, when St. Paul wrote II Thessalonians, he urged the Christians there to receive both the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are referred to as the word of God.
So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (II Thess. 2:15).
A common problem among Protestants at this point is a matter of semantics. Tradition is often viewed in a negative light because of Jesus condemnation of the tradition of men in Mark 7:8.
You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.
Notice, this verse makes very clear what kind of tradition it was that Jesus condemned. Jesus condemned the tradition of men, not all tradition. And obviously so; otherwise, you would have Jesus contradicting St. Paul. In fact, you would have Jesus contradicting himself in Matthew 23:2-3:
The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Jesus both refers to an oral traditionthe chair of Mosesand commands the apostles to believe and obey it.
Sola Scriptura is Unworkable
When it comes to the tradition of Protestantismsola scripturathe silence of the text of Scripture is deafening. When it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition, the Scriptures are clear. And when it comes to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the biblical text is equally as clear:
If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you If he refuses to listen tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Mt. 18:15-17)
According to Scripture, the Churchnot the Bible aloneis the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isnt it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years agoa reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principlethere are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?
For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be one shepherd and one fold in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable. The proof is in the puddin!
But Didn’t Jesus Himself Believe Sola Scriptura?
When the Devil tempted Jesus three times in Matthew 4, Jesus always responded with Scripture. In fact, with the second of the three temptations the Devil himself began with Scripture. As an aside, I would have to say that was not very smart of the Devil. If you are going to tempt the Word of God, do you really think you are going to outsmart the Word of God with the word of God?
At any rate, in Matt. 4:6, the Devil begins, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down [from the pinnacle of the Temple]; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone’ (quoting Psalm 91:11-12).”
Jesus then responded with Scripture in Matt. 4:7, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’ (quoting Deut. 6:16).” Doesn’t this prove Jesus believed in sola scriptura?
Absolutely not!
Just because someone quotes Scripture as an authority, this does not mean he believes in sola scriptura. The Catholic Church quotes Scripture all the time and teaches that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. But what does that prove?
The key here is to understand Jesus not only quoted Scripture as authoritative, but he also referred to Tradition as authoritative in texts like Luke 16:22 (ever read anywhere of “Abraham’s Bosom” in the Old Testament? No, this was Jewish Tradition), Matt. 2:23 (Jesus refers to an Oral Tradition “spoken by the prophets” that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament), and Matt. 23:1-3, which we saw above, where he speaks of the Tradition of “the chair of Moses”).
He also refers to his own authority when he says over and over, “You have heard it said,” and he often quotes Scripture immediately thereafter, but then he says, “But I say unto you…” He then either introduces new revelation or gives an authoritative interpretation of a biblical text (see Matt. 5:21-48) or, sometimes he simply gives an authoritative interpretation of what Scripture truly means, such as in Matt: 5:10-20.
So did Jesus Christ believe in sola scriptura? By no means! Neither should his Church. And while the Church cannot give new revelation as this ended with the death of the last apostolic man (and we know that because of, you guessed it, Tradition in order to understand texts of Scripture like Jude 3), the Church employs Scripture and Tradition just like her Lord, using her teaching authority she receives from her Lord (Matt. 18:15-18).
If you like this post and you would like to learn more, click here
Sorry, errors in that post I did not catch:
However, there absolutely were some very turbulent periods of time, in that 400 years, and there were millions of very good Christians who NEVER read the Bible or any Scripture for themselves.
The Faith was an ORAL tradition. Even my FR debate opponents on this thread have resorted to posting links on some points which ALSO reference the Oral Tradition in their links.
Sacred Scripture was rare, fragile, expensive and only the ELITE had access to it. Some were “elite” to do wealth and some due to standing I the Church or Temple.
The rest had it read to them, or recited to them.
>> “The Faith was an ORAL tradition.” <<
.
Absolutely not!
Yeshua completely rejected oral tradition; that is why he and his apostles constantly said “it is written” whenever they presented doctrine.
Oral tradition fails at every transfer. It is corrupt instantly.
This was posted to you by Elsie in this thread:
To say that the Oral Tradition PREDOMINATED for MOST Christians of the Early Church in no way requires that NO Written Scripture existed.
Yes, the Oral Tradition predominated in the Early Church, for most Christians. EVERY Christian Scholar worth his salt will agree with me on that point. (You are NOT a Scholar as you claimed, FALSELY, that the Jewish/Hebrew translations of the Greek, used to debate Christians, were original Hebrew and NOT translations. You can not find ANY reputable historian who agrees with you on that point.)
Yes, there were rare pieces of Scripture, but the Bible did not exist until nearly 400 years into the Christian Era. Scripture was large, heavy, cumbersome, not at all easy to copy or transport, it was perishable and it was expensive and it was rare.
I did not say it did not exist.
One of the reasons the Early Church, at the Council of Hippo in North Africa, wanted an OFFICIAL text is because the Scribes who copied the Scripture, as well as the Evangelicals who RECITED Scripture, were not saying exactly the same thing to their congregations, changes were made over time.
For Heaven's sake, basic LANGUAGE changes over time.
Have you ever tried to read original Shakespeare?
And of course, using Latin actually helped the Church preserve the meaning and context of original Scripture.
No, it is you that are being stubborn, unresponsive and rude.
There has been no time when the followers of Yeshua have held oral traditions.
What you’re not grasping is that the mess in Rome has never followed Him, but persecuted those that did, unmercifully.
Antichrist has had his home in Rome since the mid 4th century.
Just read the material posted top you showing categorically that all of his way is written, and none is carried in the vapors of oral tradition.
Written by WHOM?
Written WHEN?
Written when FIRST spoken by Jesus or when written by Paul?
Perhaps SPOKEN for several generations and then written?
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were CLEARLY not written down when first spoken.
Paul’s writings were copied but were also memorized and also became part of an oral tradition.
You have absolutely NO theological expert ANYWHERE who agrees with all you have posted here.
And again, you FALSELY posted on this thread that the Jewish Apologists, who debated the Catholic scholars, had access to Scripture copied directly from Jesus into Hebrew.
This is CLEARLY false, you have no experts on your side at all.
Catholic roots of King James Bible:
In reality, the King James Bible was created using preceding English translations and Greek texts dating to the 12th to 15th centuries - the “Textus Receptus” - as well as “some influence from the Latin Vulgate,” the edition by Catholic saint Jerome in the fourth century. The original Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536) was hurriedly put together and contained “thousands of typographical errors,” as well as scribal commentary that was not in the original Greek. In 1550, the TR was eventually reissued by Parisian printer Robert Estienne, also known as Stephanus/Stefanus/Stephens, whose edition was the basis of the KJV, with a significant amount of the same problems intact. The fact that various versions of the Bible differ from each other is very significant and needs to be kept in mind, as does the realization of the flawed nature of the Textus Receptus, upon which the King James Bible is based.”
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/king-james-bible-history.html
You just don’t get it, do you!
How many times have I decried the corruption of all of the popular Bibles?
God’s word was given in his language, both the OT and the NT, and then translated to change it.
Catholicism came 3 centuries after Yeshua ascended, and received corrupted writings itself.
King James version, based on TR Greek, does contain errors:
“The King James Version Errancy Debate
Four Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke and JohnIn “Discovering and Classifying New Testament Manuscripts,” fundamentalist Christian writer James Arlandson discusses the orthodox Christian belief that the four canonical gospels were inerrant and divinely inspired:
“The original authors were inspired, but we do not have their very originals The original New Testament documents were transmitted by scribes, who were not inspired.”
This more recent claim regarding only the originals being inspired essentially overrides the centuries-old, widely held notion that English translations such as the King James Bible are inerrant; yet, there remain King James inerrantists.
Because such a position appears untenable, many Christian scholars and apologists today no longer adhere to the notion that translations themselves are inspired, claiming instead that only the “originals” are inspired, as noted. The rank-and-file believers, however, still frequently maintain - as they have been taught - that the King James translation, for one, is inerrant and its translators inspired. Regardless of whether or not trained apologists believe this claim anymore, the average Christian may not be aware of the debate regarding various translations and may indeed receive the impression that the Bible favored in his or her church is inerrant. In the words of evangelical Christian Gary Amirault:
“At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the ‘Inerrant Bible’ doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of God and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the “Alexandrian cult” and the Roman Catholic Church.”[1]
Image: Worldwide Mission Fellowship, www.wwmf.org/faith/The reality is that even today many pastors continue to promote the purported inerrancy of the King James Bible. In fact, there remain ministries fervently dedicated to “defending and promoting the KJV.” Within these organizations, the King James Bible continues to be held up as “inerrant,” despite the scholarship that has revealed the Textus Receptus at its basis to be flawed.
One fundamentalist KJV defender, Brandon Staggs, comments on the debate thus:
“Almost every “fundamental” statement of faith reads that God’s word is perfect and inspired in the original autographs.
“But isn’t that a statement of unbelief? What good is God’s word if it only exists in manuscripts which no longer exist? Why would God inspire Scripture just to let it wither to dust?
“Many modern scholars believe that the real ending of the Gospel of Mark has been lost and that we can not be certain how Mark concluded his Gospel. And yet these same scholars will boldly declare belief in God’s preservation of Scripture.”[2]
“It is my belief that the King James Bible is God’s word in the English language without admixture of error.”
Evangelicals like David Sorenson, in fact, go so far as to deem “apostates” those who follow the “critical text,” such as the Revised Standard Version, as opposed to those who maintain the inerrancy of the “Received Text,” i.e., the basis for the KJV.[3] Continuing with his apology for the KJV, Staggs states:
“It is my belief that the King James Bible, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is God’s word in the English language without admixture of error.”
Despite this indoctrination of inerrancy, an investigation of the translations of the New Testament into English reveals much, as to whether or not they could possibly be considered “inerrant” works by “infallibly” inspired scribes.”
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/king-james-bible-history.html
You do not know history at all.
Your faith is based on the work of many people who You have condemned to Hell. You should thank those with whom you do not agree, as they have provided you with the Word which you now refuse to interpret correctly:
“A Brief History of the Kings James Bible
King James BiblePrior to the discovery of the most complete, ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament - the Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus - we possessed only much later copies in Greek. One of the most important translations of the Bible, the King James Version, was based not on these earliest manuscripts but on the later Greek texts, as well as on the preceding English editions such as the Tyndale, Great, Geneva and Catholic Bibles, the latter of which was in turn founded upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.
Claimed by many Christian fundamentalists to be the only inspired and inerrant translation of the Bible into English, the King James Version, also called the “Authorized Version,” possesses an interesting history, in that it was composed over several years from 1604 to 1609 by six groups comprising upwards of 40 translators. Each translator’s section was edited by the other members of the group, then passed around to the other groups, and so on, until a finalized version was accepted and was subsequently published in 1611.
“This complex history provokes several questions, including why the Holy Spirit needed so many minds and hands to work on God’s Word.”
This complex history provokes several questions, including why the Holy Spirit needed so many minds and hands to work on God’s Word. Wouldn’t it have been much faster and less fraught with the chance for error if only one person infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit had translated the texts? Common sense indicates that only if the individuals involved were relying on their own intellectual faculties and erudition would there need to be a committee of the sort used in the translation of the King James Bible.
Concerning the KJV, New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman remarks:
“ The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’s edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us!
“ The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.”[4]
Centuries after the KJV became the “noblest monument of English prose,” in fact, there arose a clear need for a new, updated translation. As the “Preface” to the Revised Standard Version (”RSV”) relates:
“ the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation .”[5]
Erasmus, by Holbein the Younger (1523)Hence, despite the esteem by evangelical Christians, it is understood by various scholars that the King James Bible was not “given by God” and possesses “grave defects.” In fact, the Greek text that the KJV largely followed is now considered a seriously flawed composition, “hastily compiled” by Desiderius Erasmus, who pieced it together using a single Greek text from the 12th century and a few other manuscript portions, producing the “Textus Receptus” or “Received Text.”
Not finding the last six verses of the New Testament, from the book of Revelation, Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to translate the pertinent verses back into Greek. Thus, these particular scriptures were not rendered from the original or even early Greek texts but are the retranslations from a Latin translation of a Greek copy of the New Testament. It is upon this defective translation that the King James Bible is based in large part, further demonstrating the tenuousness and frailty of maintaining that the KJV was infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/king-james-bible-history.html
>> “Written by WHOM?” <<
.
Written first by the Cohen Matthew, just a few years after Yeshua ascended. By AD 50 Matthew’s Hebrew gospel had traversed the world, to England, and to India and China.
Paul’s and Peter’s first epistles had been written within the next decade after that.
They were written to their dispersed brothers of the northern tribes, not to the rest of the world; they knew where those Israelites had gone, and they were the object of the Great Commission. (Matthew 15:24)
Theologians exist to destroy the gospel. Yeshua denounced them roundly. Why do you wish to assist them in their mission?
The Tyndale Translation
Moreover, the translation of the KJV was not confined to the Greek texts but also used previous English translations, including the Tyndale Bible. One of the earliest translators of the Bible into English, William Tyndale(d. 1536), was burned at the stake for “heresy.” Yet, Tyndale’s translation has been used in the creation of every significant English rendition of the Bible since his time, including the King James Version.[6] Was Tyndale inspired? If so, why would God let him be hideously killed? If he was not inspired, how can the English translations such as the KJV, based in considerable part on his work, themselves be considered inspired?
Need for Revision
Regarding the KJV, the RSV continues:
“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts .
“We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text ”[7]
One result of this need for revision is the Revised Standard Version itself, which bases its translation upon the King James Bible and “the most ancient authorities,” i.e., the Greek codices. Yet, how do we know which of the Greek texts is correct, as they differ significantly? If the Holy Spirit was inspiring the translators of the KJV, why weren’t they shown the most ancient Greek manuscripts instead, if these are more correct and closer to the originals of God’s Word? In fact, why would the Holy Spirit allow the originals or autographs to be destroyed in the first place? Why don’t we possess the pristinely and miraculously preserved texts written by the very hands of the Evangelists Themselves?”
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/king-james-bible-history.html
You have NO support for this absurd post.
NO, the HEBREW version of the New Testament, in the Early Church, was translated to FIGHT and DENOUNCE Christianity.
It was NOT used to Evangelize at all.
You can not post a single historian who agrees with you.
Not a Jew, not a Christian, not an Atheist, and certainly not a Catholic Christian.
Historians, theologians, catholics, Satan himself, all agree, so what?
You prove my point nicely.
Who “taught” YOU?
Do you have a time machine? Your views on what you believe came from SOMEWHERE and you seem to be at a loss when asked to show the roots of your Scriptural translation beliefs.
You can find nothing in writing to support your very unique and unusual view of Scriptural preservation, reproduction and translation.
Someone must have TOLD you, by Oral Tradition, what you believe today about the history of Sacred Scripture.
If your claims of the “history” or of the chain of custody of Scripture can not be found in written form, how did you “learn” your unusual beliefs?
And who taught the person who taught you? And the person before that person?
I agree in part. The church did have the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets as witnesses to the blood of Christ during much of the First Century. Later they had the witness of the martyrs. Today, the church has the Written Word.
Your excuse that millions didn't have the Word in the first 400 years is not going to satisfy the Lord on judgment Day. He I going to ask, "Why did you call Me a liar?" And in shock you will respond, "Lord, I never called you a liar."
Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (1 Jn 5:10). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
And where did God say only those who could actually READ His Word would be saved?
To BELEIVE is what matters. Why we believe does not matter to God. How we learned of Him matters not one bit.
Otherwise, no illiterate person could ever go to Heaven.
Otherwise, those who only HEARD his Word and could not read it, would never go to Heaven.
Read John 3:19
Paul’s epistles taught me.
To whom did he declare the Oracles of God were entrusted?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.