I understand your comments to mean you don't believe the texts we have are true copies of the holy scriptures. That is a direct contradiction of the Fundamentalist position, as well as the Orthodox Jewish position. It exposes one of the problems with Sola Scriptura when you admit you don't really have "The Bible" but only the best Bible money can buy, so to speak.
It seems to me you have a problem with this text; you may not know if it is accurate or not; did it only guarantee the Hebrew scriptures would be preserved, every jot and every tittle ? 2 Timothy and 2 Peter would then apply to the Tenach with a looser interpretation that Paul's writings were like other Tenach scriptures; this would be untenable in my view, most especially with the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation. No, I see a huge problem for Sola Scriptura when you confess you don't have the genuine Bible, but it is getting better as scholarship improves.
ME from post 1143: I do agree that the translation one uses influences their take on the Scripture. For this reason I rely upon the 4th Edition United Bible Societies for the Greek and NASB for English. The USB is recognized for its scholarly accuracy while the NASB is the closet word for word translation currently available.<
YOU from post 1143 : I interpret this to mean you have rejected the Greek Textus Receptus of the Protestants and Fundamentalists and think the 4th Edition is the best latest and greatest available. It seems to me that concedes to larger point on inspiration of the scriptures to Catholic Church, and completely abandons the Fundamentalists, this one verse notwithstanding. If you reject the Latin Vulgate, hold that better manuscripts have been found recently, it suggests you have neither had the complete Bible until now, and since other manuscripts may be found in the future, you may not have it now. Forth edition you say ? How many editions will it take to settle the original manuscript issue ? I think there is one frequent poster who believes all the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew. With that position, one could do what you are essentially doing, but by projecting what thee Hebrew was like that the Greek was based on and forming doctrine based on those hypotheses, a risky proposition.
ME from post 1143: First: the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are no longer in existence. So no one can lay claim to having the "original" texts....or as you want to put it the "complete" Bible. Unless you're referencing the apocrypha which Jerome noted as being non-canonical....at least until Trent. Any who do are deluding themselves.
What we do have is ongoing scholarly research to provide us with the best translation possible from the best texts possible. I'm all for that. The good news is that the Bible as we have it today is considered to be a very accurate rendition of the original texts.
There are issues in the translation of the Vulgate. One of the most glaring occurs in Luke 1:28 regarding the greeting to Mary.
Instead of translating κεχαριτωμένη as "you favored with grace", as in the Greek, the Vulgate translates this as "full of grace". There is a big difference between the two renderings in terms of theological meaning.
YOU from post 1188: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
YOU from post 1188: I understand your comments to mean you don't believe the texts we have are true copies of the holy scriptures.
ME, again from post 1143: First: the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are no longer in existence. So no one can lay claim to having the "original" texts....or as you want to put it the "complete" Bible. Unless you're referencing the apocrypha which Jerome noted as being non-canonical....at least until Trent. Any who do are deluding themselves.
YOU from post 1188: That is a direct contradiction of the Fundamentalist position, as well as the Orthodox Jewish position. It exposes one of the problems with Sola Scriptura when you admit you don't really have "The Bible" but only the best Bible money can buy, so to speak.
ME from post 1143: What we do have is ongoing scholarly research to provide us with the best translation possible from the best texts possible. I'm all for that. The good news is that the Bible as we have it today is considered to be a very accurate rendition of the original texts.
YOU from post 1188: It seems to me you have a problem with this text; you may not know if it is accurate or not; did it only guarantee the Hebrew scriptures would be preserved, every jot and every tittle ? 2 Timothy and 2 Peter would then apply to the Tenach with a looser interpretation that Paul's writings were like other Tenach scriptures; this would be untenable in my view, most especially with the words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation. No, I see a huge problem for Sola Scriptura when you confess you don't have the genuine Bible, but it is getting better as scholarship improves.
ME: As I clearly said in post 1143 we do have accurate copies of the original texts. You seem to redefine "complete Bible" in each conversation....but that is par for the course for catholicism to twist words.
It in no way undermines relying upon the Bible. In fact it reinforces confidence in the texts we have today.
If you are suggesting 2 Timothy is Scripture and will not pass away, I am in agreement. This means that 2 Timothy 2:16-17 reinforces the notion of relying upon the Bible and not man-made tradition. The Bible is the source upon which we are to rely upon...not man-made tradition. I'm glad you finally acknowledge that.
The issue we do have is with translation as noted in the example I provided in post 1143 that you conveniently ignored.