Who interpreted it for the writers? And without infallibility somewhere along the line, it's a pretty flimsy foundation, isn't it?
It might help to know Greek. But it's hardly a requirement for knowing the true faith.
Who interpreted it for the writers? And without infallibility somewhere along the line, it's a pretty flimsy foundation, isn't it?
It might help to know Greek. But it's hardly a requirement for knowing the true faith.
You wanted a reasonable objection to the rcc....I gave you one which apparently you didn't even read.
Knowing the Greek and the historical background of the OT and the NT leads one to a clearer understanding of the Word and how it should be understood. I think I know why catholics downplay using the Greek. One it isn't Latin, and two when the Greek is used it destroys a lot of roman catholic teaching.
Until the roman catholic church publishes a verse by verse commentary on what each verse means they have no room to talk. You would think that for a group that claims to be the church going back 2000 years, that claims to be infallible, a verse by verse commentary would have been published by now.
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.
The Holy Spirit that guides true believers is NOT a "flimsy foundation".