Replies

It sees to me you confessed in post 1143 that you do not have the true and accurate inspired scriptures. Your response was that no one else has them either. The Fundamental (Baptist usually goes here) will vehemently disagree with this Evangelical position, and were your position true, there was no accurate translation for Sola Scriptura, and there may not be now, for this position relies not on faith but on scholarship with the premise that no one has the "complete Bible" with every jot and tittle.

It seems to me that you are not reading Eagleone's posts very well. He is NOT saying what you accused him of. He is simply stating that NONE of the original letters of the Apostles survived - whether by Divine design or passage of time on the fragile material they were written on. What we DO have and can have all the confidence in are manuscript COPIES of those originals. We have thousands of fragments, whole books/scrolls, repetition in the writings of early church leaders (enough to basically write the whole NT from them) and copies of Old Testament scrolls going back to hundreds of years before Christ (i.e., Dead Sea scrolls). What Eagleone clearly stated - to me at least - was that nobody has the actual letter written by the hand of Paul or Peter, John, James, Matthew, etc. Personally, I think that's a good thing, seeing as these would probably make certain people worship them as they do other relics.

It seems to me that you are not reading my posts very well. What I am saying is that if you cast away the KJV or other English translations like it that were translated from the Textus Receptus in favor of Westcott and Hort's version based on Vaticanus, et. al., you have strategically retreated and admitted the Protestants did not have genuine, accurate, and complete Bibles when they rebelled against the Catholic Church (Westcott/Short published in 1881) and formed their churches on a new doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In fact, I think that position also admits you do not even have 100% accurate manuscripts now, just the best scholarship money can buy, and it tends to be of not of faith but by modern(ist) sight.

Only the Fundamentalist (Baptist usually goes here) remains, standly alone as it were, with an assertion of an unbroken chain of New Testament churches and divinely preserved accurate copies of original manuscripts where neither jot nor tittle was lost. Sola Scriptura cannot be 100% valid when you don't have 100% of the Bible. It moves you strategically to the Catholic position, which is not based 100% on having a perfect compendum of the original manuscripts, but a perfect collection of truth because the LORD Jesus Christ said And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. and other scriptures have But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. The Catholic Church's position remains in the face of the argument that the manuscripts are corrupted, for it relies on the teaching tradition, passed down bishop to bishop over the centuries, one holy catholic apostolic church, as well as the Scriptures we do have for truth and doctrine.