The Bible can it be trusted?

[BJ Bear]

Or it comes from the teachings of the apostles and an understanding of the New Testament.

There is no actual evidence of this myth.

The New Testament quotes of the Old Testament show a strong preference for the LXX over the modern Hebrew text even when the LXX is much different from the Hebrew. In some cases the verses only appear in the LXX.

Where is the verifiable evidence of this claim? The example you provided previously is of an unknown chronological order, in other words, there is no verifiable evidence of which came first.

The Bereans and other Greek-speaking synagogues formed the basis of the early Church when they converted to Christianity. Their scriptures are the basis for the Old Testament found in the earliest surviving Christian bibles.

The Greek speakers forming a Greek speaking portion of the church is tautological, and to think of them forming anything more than that is illogical, myopic, and false.

For the sake of argument, even if a person considers the Greek speakers to form something more then their confusion over the extent of the canon and and the varying use of different books demonstrates that they are unreliable guides in this regard.

 

[Theophilos]

There is no actual evidence of this myth.

Where is the verifiable evidence of this claim? The example you provided previously is of an unknown chronological order, in other words, there is no verifiable evidence of which came first.

The Greek speakers forming a Greek speaking portion of the church is tautological, and to think of them forming anything more than that is illogical, myopic, and false.

For the sake of argument, even if a person considers the Greek speakers to form something more then their confusion over the extent of the canon and and the varying use of different books demonstrates that they are unreliable guides in this regard.

The LXX predates the New Testament about 100 to 300 years. There is little question about which came first.

The New Testament canon mainly came from the traditions of Greek-speaking church. Were they divinely guided for the New Testament canon but hopelessly wrong on the Old Testament?

Likewise were the Jews who rejected Christ divinely inspired in the their selection of books in the Hebrew canon, but hopelessly wrong in rejecting the New Testament?

The revised canon that developed out of the Reformation is unlike any that existed before it.

 

[mica]

The LXX predates the New Testament about 100 to 300 years. There is little question about which came first.

The New Testament canon mainly came from the traditions of Greek-speaking church. Were they divinely guided for the New Testament canon but hopelessly wrong on the Old Testament?

what Greek speaking church are you referring to?

Likewise were the Jews who rejected Christ divinely inspired in the their selection of books in the Hebrew canon, but hopelessly wrong in rejecting the New Testament?

Does that surprise you? Then you know little of what He tells us in His word. Do you think God didn't know about that before the beginning of time? Do you think He didn't include that in His plan?

The revised canon that developed out of the Reformation is unlike any that existed before it.

are you claiming that the Jews OT and the NT writings now are not the same as prior to the reformation?

 

[BJ Bear]

The LXX predates the New Testament about 100 to 300 years. There is little question about which came first.

When something was written and what was written are two different things. There is no evidence that the particular Greek translation of a particular passage predates what was written in Acts.

The New Testament canon mainly came from the traditions of Greek-speaking church. Were they divinely guided for the New Testament canon but hopelessly wrong on the Old Testament?

The traditions of the early non-Apostolic Greek speaking Christians weren't reliable guides in either case. That is why there were multiple canons of the OT and multiple classifications of NT books.

Likewise were the Jews who rejected Christ divinely inspired in the their selection of books in the Hebrew canon, but hopelessly wrong in rejecting the New Testament?

The Apostles and early Christians were Jews. The basis of your reasoning and question is flawed.

The revised canon that developed out of the Reformation is unlike any that existed before it.

That is more Papal myth. The short canon was in use among early Greek speaking Christians more than a millennia before Luther and sanctioned almost a millennia before Luther, see Quinisextimus. Also, for the record, Luther translated more books than are in the Papal canon.

 

[RayneBeau]

Amen: the mechanism of Tradition is reliable. That is the point I was making and you just proved my point--which means you proved Catholics right.

Where does Gods Word refer to tradition as a "mechanism"?

The Scriptures teach emphatically that Scripture is the inspired Word of God.
Where do the Scriptures teach that 'Tradition' is inspired?

 

[mica]

...
Amen: the mechanism of Tradition is reliable. That is the point I was making and you just proved my point--which means you proved Catholics right.

if you think the catholic 'mechanism of tradition' it is reliable, then why doesn't the RCC teach the truth found within His word?

 

[balshan]

if you think the catholic 'mechanism of tradition' it is reliable, then why doesn't the RCC teach the truth found within His word?

Excellent point.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

if you think the catholic 'mechanism of tradition' it is reliable, then why doesn't the RCC teach the truth found within His word?

You are begging the question. You are assuming that what the RCC teaches is not found in His Word. You have not proven that thesis.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Excellent point.

How is question begging an excellent point from your view?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Where does Gods Word refer to tradition as a "mechanism"?

It doesn't--at least as far as I know. The mechanism is just the process of handing on.

The Scriptures teach emphatically that Scripture is the inspired Word of God.
Where do the Scriptures teach that 'Tradition' is inspired?

The Scriptures, as far as I am aware do not teach that Tradition is inspired. But Catholics have never claimed that Tradition is inspired.

 

[Nondenom40]

It doesn't--at least as far as I know. The mechanism is just the process of handing on.

The Scriptures, as far as I am aware do not teach that Tradition is inspired. But Catholics have never claimed that Tradition is inspired.

Then its not equal to scripture, as catholics claim it is. When the bible says it is God breathed and we know that tradition isn't, then Tradition isn't on the same footing as what is God breathed and therefore must submit to it.

 

[mica]

mica said:
if you think the catholic 'mechanism of tradition' it is reliable, then why doesn't the RCC teach the truth found within His word?

You are begging the question.

no, i won't beg you to actually answer questions. most you can't answer according to scripture. you just go off into a catholic tailspin.

You are assuming that what the RCC teaches is not found in His Word. You have not proven that thesis.

no, I'm not assuming that, I know it. if it could be found in scripture then catholics would post those verses instead of giving a catholic song and dance about and around it.

I actually read and study scripture without following the RCC restrictions that catholics are required (by it) to follow. I'm not in bondage to the RCC, so I read it the way it was intended to be read - with a heart's desire for His truth and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[mica]

mica said:
if you think the catholic 'mechanism of tradition' it is reliable, then why doesn't the RCC teach the truth found within His word?

You are begging the question. You are assuming that what the RCC teaches is not found in His Word. You have not proven that thesis.

not answering questions must be another bondage of the RCC.

you (no catholic) has proven that what the RCC teaches is found in scripture.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Then its not equal to scripture, as Catholics claim it is. When the bible says it is God breathed and we know that tradition isn't, then Tradition isn't on the same footing as what is God breathed and therefore must submit to it.

Catholics do not claim that Tradition is equal to Scripture with respect to its nature. It is with respect to what it DOES that Catholics receive Tradition as equal to Scripture. Because Tradition hands on one in the same Gospel, Catholics venerate it with Scripture---not because of its NATURE.

In summary: Tradition is equal to Scripture in terms of what it DOES--that is---because it hands on one and the same Gospel. Tradition is not equal to Scripture with respect it its NATURE. Scripture is God Breathed, Tradition is not; Tradition is merely infallible. Scripture is inspired and infallible.

 

[mica]

Catholics do not claim that Tradition is equal to Scripture with respect to its nature. It is with respect to what it DOES that Catholics receive Tradition as equal to Scripture. Because Tradition hands on one in the same Gospel, Catholics venerate it with Scripture---not because of its NATURE.

In summary: Tradition is equal to Scripture in terms of what it DOES--that is---because it hands on one and the same Gospel. Tradition is not equal to Scripture with respect it its NATURE. Scripture is God Breathed, Tradition is not; Tradition is merely infallible. Scripture is inspired and infallible.

post verses on what scripture says regarding tradition vs Tradition. thx.

 

[balshan]

You are begging the question. You are assuming that what the RCC teaches is not found in His Word. You have not proven that thesis.

Oh the poster has over and over and over again.

 

[RayneBeau]

Catholics do not claim that Tradition is equal to Scripture with respect to its nature. It is with respect to what it DOES that Catholics receive Tradition as equal to Scripture. Because Tradition hands on one in the same Gospel, Catholics venerate it with Scripture---not because of its NATURE.

In summary: Tradition is equal to Scripture in terms of what it DOES--that is---because it hands on one and the same Gospel. Tradition is not equal to Scripture with respect it its NATURE. Scripture is God Breathed, Tradition is not; Tradition is merely infallible. Scripture is inspired and infallible.

I find humor to all of this. The Eastern Orthodox Church has drawn up their reasons why sola Scriptura is not an acceptable principle of theology, and it's illogical and unhistorical and on and on and on. And throughout their writings they use exactly the same rhetoric, and exactly the same polemics as Roman Catholics use against Protestants with respect to Sola Scriptura, and throughout their writings they also promote the idea of Scripture plus holy tradition.
Now, I find this funny, because of it's irony. Roman Catholics present these very same arguments to argue in favor of Roman Catholic tradition, and papal tradition. And then they turn right around and find that the Eastern Orthodox polemicists use exactly the same arguments in favor of what they call their "Holy Tradition" which is contrary to papal tradition, and so you have here 2 strong-minded professedly Christian bodies claiming the authority of tradition, and yet their authorities conflict with each other; and their traditions conflict with each other. Yet they laugh at Protestants for their sola Scriptura belief in their Bible.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Yes, and isn't it also the Douay-Rheims translation for the Roman Catholic Church that omitted one of God's original 10 Commandments about idols, changed the words, and re-numbered God's 10 Commandments given to Moses?

Thread after thread we have some RCs throwing doubt on God's word. Question its accuracy etc. by making statements we don't have the originals. The translations are they God's words blah, blah, blah.

What is the point of doing so? For a new believer it would be disconcerting, as they would be questioning whether they can rely on the scriptures they read.

We all know that the originals are mislaid. We all know the scripture is coming from copies. But is has been shown that there are a few minor differences that really don't make a difference to the context and that there are only a few mistakes that a minor.

The catechism is clear:


102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.

accuracy of the OT:

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah was found from 125 B.C.11 When it was compared with a scroll of Isaiah from A.D. 900, a scroll copied 10 centuries later, it was found to match in 95 % of its contents. The material that did not match included simple misspellings or slips of the pen. No doctrinal material was affected by the discrepancies. And it can be certain that the Masoretes and their Jewish counterparts played a great role in the accuracy of that text. And there are other examples from ancient history that show the exactness of the copying of the Old Testament.

Just the Simple Truth » Was the Bible copied accurately?

www.justthesimpletruth.com

To "trust the Bible" one has to trust that a canon of books is what God wanted.

On what basis do we trust that God wanted such a canon and on what basis do we trust the men who canonized these books?

 

[balshan]

To "trust the Bible" one has to trust that a canon of books is what God wanted.

On what basis do we trust that God wanted such a canon and on what basis do we trust the men who canonized these books?

By ignoring the evil institution called the RCC. The books are scripture whether in a canon or not. I would not trust men especially the RCC leaders.

 

[Our Lord's God]

By ignoring the evil institution called the RCC. The books are scripture whether in a canon or not. I would not trust men especially the RCC leaders.

Then where did you get your canon? Who told you these 66 books, and not other books, are canon?

And who told you God wanted a canon?