Originally posted by ColettiColetti: Maybe I am confusing your views with No1 - who has clearly rejected any validity to scripture
Of course it is circular. There is not greater authority than Scripture because it is God's Word - and Christ is God's Word.
Be that as it may, let me ask you - do you, or do you not, believe there is anything that can be considered the inspired word of God?
I'm curious because you seem to give many mixed messages and I am having trouble understa ...[text shortened]... ut Scripture and how do you make your case for your view?
I've given mine. It's your turn.
I don't say scripture has no "validity" unless you are using another one of your non-standard definitions.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere are some interesting letters between Jerome and Augustine at the time he was doing his *second round* of translations and decided to add the apocryphal books. Apparently, Augustine thought it was a bad idea. Especially since some had already been rejected by the Jews. And it might confuse people into thinking they were also scripture. He was right. Fooled people for a 1000 years. 🙂
St. Jerome - Latin Vulgate*
😀
3 edits
Originally posted by ColettiFunny you should mention that - because it was nearly the opposite that happened. St. Jerome had already been translating the Bible from the Greek Septuaguint when he decided to use the Hebrew versions as well in his translation. St. Augustine is actually asking St. Jerome not to use the Hebrew version (which, of course, does not contain the Deutero-canonicals).
There are some interesting letters between Jerome and Augustine at the time he was doing his *second round* of translations and decided to add the apocryphal books. Apparently, Augustine thought it was a bad idea. Especially since some ha ...[text shortened]... scripture. He was right. Fooled people for a 1000 years. 🙂
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html
For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language. I say nothing of the Seventy (Ed: hence the name 'Septuaguint' or abbreviation LXX), regarding whose harmony in mind and spirit, surpassing that which is found in even one man, I dare not in any way pronounce a decided opinion, except that in my judgment, beyond question, very high authority must in this work of translation be conceded to them. (St. Augustine to St. Jerome, c. AD 394)
Originally posted by Darfius
I'm 'admitting' that God influenced every single word on the original manuscripts and that copyists later made some errors, though I believe somewhere around 99% of the text still has integrity to the originals and the mistakes are largely dealing with numbers and nothing to do with salvation.
Why would God allow any errors in his divine text? Seems a bit sloppy.
Originally posted by Coletti"the Jews" rejected all the NT books , too, does that also make them not sctipture?
There are some interesting letters between Jerome and Augustine at the time he was doing his *second round* of translations and decided to add the apocryphal books. Apparently, Augustine thought it was a bad idea. Especially since some had already been rejected by the Jews. And it might confuse people into thinking they were also scripture. He was right. Fooled people for a 1000 years. 🙂
Wasn't one of the main themes of Christ that the "word" wasn't being followed?
Originally posted by ColettiI believe he posted something of this sort five posts before this one of yours. Basically he said that the ideas found in the Bible (and presumably elsewhere) are more important than arguing about what is scripture and what is not. Seeds, I think he called them.
Of course it is circular. There is not greater authority than Scripture because it is God's Word - and Christ is God's Word.
Be that as it may, let me ask you - do you, or do you not, believe there is anything that can be considered the inspired word of God?
I'm curious because you seem to give many mixed messages and I am having trouble understa ...[text shortened]... ut Scripture and how do you make your case for your view?
I've given mine. It's your turn.
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulThank you, he did give his views. They are understandable, even it I don't agree with him in some details. I guess I have trouble with why he feels motivated to attack my views. Maybe he is playing devils advocate - but playing it too convincingly.
I believe he posted something of this sort five posts before this one of yours. Basically he said that the ideas found in the Bible (and presumably elsewhere) are more important than arguing about what is scripture and what is not. Seeds, I think he called them.
... --- ...
Originally posted by ColettiI find anyone who holds any view which is demonstrable false to be worthy of criticism.
Thank you, he did give his views. They are understandable, even it I don't agree with him in some details. I guess I have trouble with why he feels motivated to attack my views. Maybe he is playing devils advocate - but playing it too convincingly.
You say the Bible says that all Scripture is inspired. Therefore the Bible is inspired, because it
is Scripture.
I say the Bible doesn't say this, that the letter that stated that all Scripture is inspired was
penned long before people started to put the canon of the Bible together. If you had asked
the author of 1 Timothy what books compose 'Scripture,' he would not have answered the
27 books of the NT -- I doubt that he would even claim that his own letter was Scripture.
Indeed, he did know the 27 books, there never would have been any controversy (as there
was) about whether or not to include the Shepherd of Hermas or the letters of St Clement
in the Canon, or to exclude Revelation (as it almost was).
And, because the claim was made 300 years before the canon was formed and then 1500 years
before the Protestants changed the ratified canon, I fail to see how you could believe that
such a claim resides in any rational world. It's riddled with caveats and illogical explanations
and ultimately rests on the authority it (sort of) claims for itself. Well, guess what: the Koran
and the Book of Mormon make the same claims of authority, but I don't see you calling those
Scripture.
You may feel attacked and I am sorry you do. I don't really care what you believe. But
if you are going to put them on display for people to evaluate, then don't be surprised when
(if they don't make sense) I pop in an criticize them. If you don't want criticism, then don't
post them.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWow!
I find anyone who holds any view which is demonstrable false to be worthy of criticism.
You say the Bible says that all Scripture is inspired. Therefore the Bible is inspired, because it
is Scripture.
I say the Bible doesn't say this, that the letter that stated that all Scripture is inspired was
penned long before people started to put the canon o ...[text shortened]... e) I pop in an criticize them. If you don't want criticism, then don't
post them.
Nemesio
So you believe there's no way to know what books are scripture, and you don't believe any scripture is inspired. Correct?
Originally posted by ColettiThat is exactly NOT was is being said. Your argument is being fueled by your feelings of being attacked. Nemisio is merely saying that what you call scripture is not what the author of Timothy called scripture, for what you call scripture was not collected into a single volume at the time. Therefore when that said author says that scripure is inspired, or "God-breathed" or whatever, he could easily be thinking of something else, perhaps the OT, perhaps all writings by God fearing people, perhaps his own personal list of "good" writings and letters.
Wow!
So you believe there's no way to know what books are scripture, and you don't believe any scripture is inspired. Correct?
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulThe author of Timothy is , of course, Paul.
That is exactly NOT was is being said. Your argument is being fueled by your feelings of being attacked. Nemisio is merely saying that what you call scripture is not what the author of Timothy called scripture, for what you call scripture was not collected into a single volume at the time. Therefore when that said author says that scripure is inspire ...[text shortened]... fearing people, perhaps his own personal list of "good" writings and letters.
... --- ...
Christ does say " Moses gave you that...." . indicating the bible was not entirely God's words.