Replies

(Sorry if I'm answering this out of order; this thread is going to Mars and back!)

metmom wrote:

The Catholic church has mistranslated some passages of Scripture.

Such as? And can you tell me HOW you know they're "MIS-translated" (and not simply translated in a way you and/or your pastor happen not to like)? Such a charge needs to be proven.

Therefore, you cannot use them right?

(??) I'm not following your reasoning, here. First, you'd need to prove (not merely claim) that "the Church" has both mistranslated portions of Scripture AND said that those "MIStranslations" are infallibly true (as opposed to some well-meaning Catholic theologian who happens to get something wrong while translating). Second, you'll have to explain what "them" means; do you mean "the mistranslated verses"? If so, then yes... no one should use mistranslated verses. If you mean ANY verses, then you'd have to explain why not.

If sola scriptura is invalidated because there may an inaccuracy in the translation of a word,

That wasn't what I said. Sola Scriptura is invalid because it is self-contradictory, and therefore provably false (i.e. it violates itself while trying to prove itself). I said that ANOTHER flaw of sola Scriptura was its inability to be sure that they had the correct Scriptures in the FIRST place.

then that invalidates anything the Catholic church has to say when they deliberately mistranslate a word.

I think you mean to say, "If the Church isn't infallible in Her teaching, then there's no reason to trust Her teaching." That's correct; if She can err in Her formal teaching, then there's no reason to prefer Her to any other Christian group. But you've not yet shown that She (the Church) *has* "mistranslated" Scripture (and taught that mistranslation as a doctrine). Can you?

Maybe I can summarize my points, for the sake of clarity (and for the sake of not having to wade through 400 posts to get to it!)...

Sola Scriptura claims that "if something isn't in the Bible, then don't trust it with matters of salvation". But sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Therefore, sola Scriptura insists that we not trust sola Scriptura. As Chesterton says, "the idea has killed itself in three sentences." That's the biggest (and utterly fatal) problem with sola Scriptura: the fact that it's logical nonsense, and it cannot possible be true.

Secondly: anti-Catholic Protestants who appeal to "sola Scriptura" already have the Bible... but from where? They inherited it from the very Catholic Church Whom they attack and malign. Riddle me this: you say, for example, that the Second Book of Maccabees (which praises prayers for the dead, and is the clearest Scriptural proof for the idea of Purgatory, though they don't call it that by name--see 2 Macc 12:39-45) is NOT inspired Scripture, and that it doesn't belong in the Bible. Why not? And why does the Book of James (which Martin Luther despised as "an epistle of straw, without the character of true Scripture") BELONG in the Bible? From where did the "table of contents" come? Do you know? Have you looked? The answer might surprise you.

Third: sola Scriptura leaves all (I'll borrow the acronym from NYer!) "YOPIOS" (Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture) users without any final guide for knowing whether their interpretation is RIGHT or not. A pastor might be misinterpreting this-or-that passage of Scripture and leading his flock on the primrose path to hell, for all he knows... and he will be answerable to God for it.

Think about this: Seventh Day Adventists teach that all sincere Protestants (evangelical or otherwise) who worship on Sunday are headed for hell, for violating the Third Commandment (i.e. observing Sunday, rather than the actual Sabbath, which was Saturday). Do you believe that? If not, WHY not? Why do you feel that you're not hell-bound for worshipping (at a mega-church or otherwise) on Sunday? Their position is backed up by Scripture; is yours? How would you ever know? Will you claim that they're evil, or "not led by the Spirit", or ignorant, or stupid, or not prayerful? Why do they differ from you, while still using "sola Scriptura", just as you do?

Such as? And can you tell me HOW you know they're "MIS-translated" (and not simply translated in a way you and/or your pastor happen not to like)? Such a charge needs to be proven.

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-15.htm

The Douay-Rheims Bible is the ONLY one to translate the personal pronoun *he* as *she*.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

http://biblehub.com/acts/2-38.htm

The Catholic church takes the word *repent* and changes it to *do penance*.

For all your criticisms of sola scriptura as not being valid, the best Catholicism has to offer is *because we say so*. And then try to appeal to a verse or two to support themselves, which is ironic if they consider sola scriptura invalid for the reasons you mentioned.

By your reasoning, you did not render sola scriptura invalid, but the word of God itself.