Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Seriously? Is this a joke or some insider Dispensationalist thing?
How about rather we do it this way. We start with the 66 books that no one has ever been able to prove contain errors. Then, if any other books considered have proven to have any error whatsoever we determine those to be not divinely inspired and discard them as from the deceiver.
No thanks. You just want to be the fallible man with all authority, even over what is in the canon of Holy Scripture.
No thanks, I’ll stick with Christ’s plan: His Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, guided by the Holy Spirit.
I would think you would remember your own rule on this without my constant reminders.
Yeah, didn’t think you would want to go there. Even fallible men know when the errors are so obvious it doesn’t take much to show they are from the deceiver not from God.
Sorry, you can’t exempt yourself from your own rule; you’re still just Fallible Man Talking.
OK, we simply let each person decide their own canon and interpretation of Scripture.........oh, wait, that has been tried and didn't work.
Actually it worked rather well for those of us who are thankful someone exposed the errors of those who were lying about what God really says.
Promoting books with errors like the following doesn’t add to confidence in the truthfulness of Christianity.
Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted in 931 B.C. and 210 years later when Assyria conquered Israel in 721 B.C. Then it says in Tobit 14 that he was 112 when he died. Oops!
In Judith we find an error of who Nebuchadnezzar was King of.
Judith 1:1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh,
Nebuchadnezzar didn’t rule over the Assyrians he was King over Babylonia.
2 Kings 24:1 While Jehoiakim was king, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia invaded Judah
Why would anyone rely on books with obvious errors? The Holy Spirit inspired books have never been shown to have errors. The Catholic Church uses books with obvious errors to try to prop up their own errors.
Like I said earlier. I’ll stay with the books which have never been shown to have errors.
We’ve seen here lately posts about the “individual.” As if being a Christian was or could or should be an individual life, experience.
A Christian life outside the Christian community would be unthinkable to the Church, (excluding anchorites in vocations dedicated to prayer.)
I cannot imagine Scripture through this individualistic view.
Any thesis on errors that excludes Luther’s addition of ‘alone’ and his other “improvements” seems doomed from the start...
Then you similarly reject the books of Genesis and Exodus because of conflicting scientific and archaeological evidence or are you content that are right, just not yet proven scientifically?
Prove it.
Uh-oh, D-. You better check out this post 3430 that Natural Law posted to Cynical Bear. Your Catholic Bible Study may in interested in this, since you’re studying Genesis right now...
Yes, thank you, I did. From http://www.museeprotestant.org/Pages/Notices.php?scatid=6¬iceid=145&lev=1&Lget=EN:
Olivétan (1506-1538)
Olivétan is well-known for his French translation of the Bible, referred to as Olivétan's Bible. It was the first Bible ever to be translated into French from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. It is also known as "the martyrs' Bible".
Translation of the Bible into French
Pierre Robert, also known as Olivétan, was born in Noyon around 1506 and was Calvin's cousin. He studied in Orleans, and went to Strasburg to study Hebrew with Bucer. He then dedicated himself to teaching.
In 1532, at the Chanforan synod (Vaudois valley of the Piedmont region), the Waldensians, under Guillaume Farel's influence, decided to adhere to the Reformation. They also decided to publish a Bible in French. Farel gave Olivétan the responsibility of the translation. It took him two years to accomplish the task. This was the first time the original texts in Hebrew and Greek had been translated into French. Works of such scholars as Lefèvre d'Étaples were of great help to Olivétan. His Bible was printed in Neufchatel in 1535 and the introduction was written by Calvin, at the time only 25 years old.
The apocryphal books were printed in this Bible but a note specified that "they were considered as legitimate neither by the Hebrews nor by the Church as a whole" ("qu'ils ne sont point reçus ni tenus comme légitimes tant des hébreux que de toute l'Église").
Prove that there is equally critical evidence for the believability of Exodus as you presented for the Deuterocanonicals? It is all over the internet, just Google it. Much of it is from highly reputable academic sourced.
I won't present it because that would suggest that I believe or endorse it. I am not trying to prove Exodus wrong, only the problems associated with trying to disprove Scripture with something other than inerrant information. Your proof that the Deuterocanonicals are false is no more credible than the information from similar sources that Exodus and Genesis are false.
I think what you quoted is a somewhat different issue than what you specifically objected to, as Rome infallibly declaring itself to be the infallible OTC, which claim is not dependent upon consent of the laity or anyone, but which agree to implicitly submit to such decrees, is one thing, while forcing her members against their will to join and submit is another.
I did not contend for the latter and i think i provided for RCs having freedom for some degree of dissent in the majority of what she teaches and believes, yet i was objecting to the implicit assent of faith some teachings or teachers require, and which is required to be given to infallible teaching as a condition of being a RC, based upon the premise of assured infallibility which she autocratic declares she has.
Oh, no, no, no, no...Jehovah got a "makeover", doncha know. That there was the old Jehovah, the new Jehovah is a God of love now, and he wants everyone to just love everyone else and everybody should be nice and NEVER stir the pot. That way, everyone will all get along and the world will be at peace....la, fa, la, fa, la...;o)
To be Catholic means that we have chosen to believe that the Church was instituted by Jesus and given a role in the determination of Canon and the interpretation of Scripture with the same level of authority and believability as Scripture itself. You are free to reject that and remain out of Communion but you do not have a right to expectation that Catholics to do the same.
You failed to respond to my second point. Why do so many of you obsess over the Church when your greatest indictment of Her is that Catholics love Christ imperfectly by your standards? With 2/3 of the world population still non-Christian wouldn't you better serve God fishing for souls in that lake and not sewing discord with Catholics?
You were the one who contended that Genesis and Exodus had conflicting scientific and archaeological evidence. I simply asked you to prove what was in contention. If you can’t do so just say it.
Why?
Why would anyone waste their and their classmate’s time set aside for the study of Holy Scripture discussing science? Makes little sense to me. I can take science classes for that.
Don’t forget those famous words of Jesus: ‘Think not that I am come to send judgement on earth: I came not to send a sword, but peace. I think if we just allow each other to vent, then this can all be worked out..I shall send Oprah one day to show you the way of peace. Is that okay with everyone?....?’
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.