Deception need not be involved. There are things called mistakes. Now regarding your question, I already provided an answer to that in my prior posts. You may go back and read them again if you like.
Upvote
0
Deception need not be involved. There are things called mistakes. Now regarding your question, I already provided an answer to that in my prior posts. You may go back and read them again if you like.Provable? Textual criticism is not based on subjective proof but objective evidence. There's a huge difference.
Your experiment above is not an example of the variants found in the manuscripts. Your example has three statements which agree and one that does not. It amounts to someone promoting deception as the three manuscript copies contradict the unknown autograph.
First how would one know if they did not have the original to compare? Answer: the manuscript scribes all decided to deceive the reader. And did so from three different geographical locations hundreds of miles apart. Not only is this a terrible example, it is not even textual criticism unless you think our Bibles today contain a concerted deception.
Actually this is what the textual critics deal with:
Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.
Well, those who believe the entire Bible is the Word of God treat the Bible as if it were God.That's not the same thing...
Wow, that is a long way to say "I know no passages that teach what the definition says". I didn't think you would know any passages that taught it. I guess you also do not know any passages that "by good and necessary consequence" teach the definition either. Thanks for your comments. Maybe somebody else will have a go at collecting passages that teach the definition as it was given.I am on topic but you wanting a direct quote that is the word for word equivalent to the definition. Nothing about the test for the canon of Scripture, Apostolic, Levetical or prophetic authority. Nothing concerning the internal evidence for authority or verification. Just this circular question you use to navigate around core issues. I think your the one dragging this off topic every time a valid point is raised. I have learned from long experience chasing rhetorical questions in circle is pointless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt the first couple of times but after that I'll deal with the nature of the fallacy being used and let the conversation go where the underlying principles take it.
We avoid that error by recognizing what the Church's purpose is: to know the truth and therefore to teach it on matters of faith and morals, those things that pertain to man's salvation, not on science.He was no doubt speaking of Copernicus, but the issue is exactly the same. History has shown how they were wrong to oppose the heliocentric theory of the solar system. But they did it on the basis of interpreting scripture as a guide to how to accept science. And they were in error. Now how do you propose that, today, we avoid making that error?
Actually I do but I don't chase fallacious rhetoric in circles.Wow, that is a long way to say "I know no passages that teach what the definition says". I didn't think you would know any passages that taught it. I guess you also do not know any passages that "by good and necessary consequence" teach the definition either. Thanks for your comments. Maybe somebody else will have a go at collecting passages that teach the definition as it was given.
That's not true, to live you life, direct your prays and establish doctrine according to the Scriptures is a time tested article of faith. Its a legacy from our Hebrew spiritual ancestors and a tradition in the Christian faith these two thousand years.Well, those who believe the entire Bible is the Word of God treat the Bible as if it were God.
Of course we do, most, if not all text variation is negligible. The Scriptures remain the best preserved living documents from antiquity.Provable? Textual criticism is not based on subjective proof but objective evidence. There's a huge difference.
Your experiment above is not an example of the variants found in the manuscripts. Your example has three statements which agree and one that does not. It amounts to someone promoting deception as the three manuscript copies contradict the unknown autograph.
First how would one know if they did not have the original to compare? Answer: the manuscript scribes all decided to deceive the reader. And did so from three different geographical locations hundreds of miles apart. Not only is this a terrible example, it is not even textual criticism unless you think our Bibles today contain a concerted deception.
Actually this is what the textual critics deal with:
Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.
Entire verses have been removed.A false generalization as I pointed out the various variants were misspelled words and word order. The scholars rightly do not toss these out based on copying errors.
But you have no originals. That is your problem. Even if all of your copies agree, that is no guarantee that they match the originals. And your copies do not even agree in the first place.And as already pointed out we have thousands of copies to compare to ensure accuracy in transmission.
No, please go back and re-read what I posted. For example, I posted the following:You quoted from the English translation. I specifically stated their has been no break in the Greek NT. There has not.
No, I did not assume that.You assume, for some reason, the NT Scriptures were lost along the way and not until Hort and Nestle-Aland we could not determine what the Bible really contained.
No, the Vulgate was not based on the earliest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. It is not as if St. Jerome had St. Paul's original handwritten letters on hand when he made his translation. St. Jerome based his translations on copies of the originals, as well.This is false as we do have the Latin Vulgate from the 4th century which incorporated the earliest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
I have already stated below that I believe that our modern translations are very reliable. But you need to prove that they are 100% accurate, because you practice Sola Scriptura. That is your problem.A most resounding result confirming the accuracy of the Scriptures. According to textual critics.
I have never made an argument that they are not reliable. This is simply a straw man. I have wrote that you are unable to prove that the current texts that we have today perfectly match the original texts. And if you think that "the scholars" believe that our current texts 100% perfectly match the original texts, why don't you provide some evidence of that? Why is it that your very own Bible contains footnotes that indicate that certain verses are in dispute?You are making an untenable argument. Textual criticism actually confirms the reliability of the Bibles we hold today.
Or do you have evidences of textual critics who do not have confidence in the accuracy of vast amounts of manuscripts accurately communicating the autographs?
I gave you 2 Maccabees.I have not seen any NT scholars argue what you are arguing. I pointed out in my previous post:
Which you did not address.
You do not know with 100% certainty what they say. That is exactly why the footnotes in your Bible indicate that certain verses are in dispute, and why Bibles are re-edited year after year, removing and making changes to the text. If you knew what the original said with perfect certainty, there would be no need for revisions of the Greek base text on which translations are made.No one made that claim. However they have been transmitted faithfully. In addition, we have such a vast sample we know what they say.
I completely agree. But "the best" does not mean "perfect". That is your problem.No other documents from antiquity comes close to the accuracy and reliability of the NT manuscripts.
No, I have never asked for perfection in every manuscript. I have asked for only one compilation (Nestle-Aland, for example) that perfectly matches the originals, and you have not been able to provide even one.Asking for perfection in every manuscript shows me you don't fathom the depths of textual criticism. No NT scholar would agree with you. Agnostic and atheists there are a few for obvious reasons.
No. This is simply ad-hominem. And the Christian position is not that the original inspired writings have been perfectly 100% transmitted. There is no major church body that takes this position.Skeptics are relevant as you are arguing the non Christian positions on textual perfection.
This is simply more ad-hominem. You are addressing those making the argument rather than the argument itself.If so why argue the point of non Christian skeptics who are usually not NT scholars?
And neither have I made the argument that the Bible we have today is unreliable. My argument is that our current texts do not perfectly 100% match the originals, and as such Sola Scriptura has no firm ground on which to stand.Textual critics don't even argue for having the original autographs. The entire endeavor of textual criticism is to compare the various, and in this case abundant, manuscripts to determine variants. I pointed out already no textual critic makes the argument the Bible we have today is unreliable.
Perhaps you should keep your opinions and your ad hominem to yourself and stick to discussing the issues.Perhaps you should explore the actual definition of inerrancy and infallible.
No, it is not only spelling errors. Entire verses have been removed.Absolutely when the 10 percent is due to a spelling error or differing sentence structure. Or in the case of the DSS a different dialect. There were some significant differences in 2nd century BC Hebrew penmanship and dialect to the 2nd century AD Hebrew. However, we have scholars who can determine these differences and then compare to the Greek Septuagint. The result? Nothing in the text changed what is being communicated by God.
Plenty of people are 100% confident about things and 100% wrong about them. Your Bible removes entire books of Sacred Scripture, so obviously you have gotten things very wrong.Yes I am 100% confident what the Holy Spirit inspired in the autographs is 100% communicated in the vast amounts of manuscripts we had in 4th AD Vulgate and in the manuscripts today. I don't base this on textual criticism. I base this on God's Divine purpose that His words will never return to Him empty. I can read the Bible and see God's Divine attributes and inspiration. The scholarship just confirms what is already evident (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)
Nestle-Aland is not Protestant. There are Catholics on the editorial board.Well your Catholic NABRE NT is based on the Protestant Nestle-Aland critical text
You have, with no authority, removed 7 books of the Word that they preserved. So you do them a disservice, regardless of whether or not you bless them.God Bless those Monks. We would know nothing of ancient secular history as well without them. There would have been no Reformation without their dedication in preserving the written Word.
No, this is simply false.Sola Scriptura was indeed employed by the early fathers and early councils.
The Protestant version of Esther has no prophet or thus saith the Lord, and does not even mention God one single time. So your argument attempting to ignore 2 Maccabees fails. Your Bible removed those verses, and “yeah, it matters”, which is why you are attempting to avoid addressing them altogether.Just looked at the NIV. Mark 16 in total is there with a footnote and brackets. Yet even without Mark 16:9-20 what Christian doctrine is changed?
Considering the Maccabees has no prophet or thus saith the Lord, I leave that one.
Already addressed Mark 16 above.
Did you mean 1 John 5:7-8?
If so, it only appears in the text of four late medieval manuscripts in Latin. 25,000 vs 4. Not hard to pick out.
I did not state that a perfect match of every manuscript or even one is a requirement for textual criticism. If it is your claim that the original texts have been perfectly 100% transmitted, then you should be able to provide at least one text (compilation or otherwise) that matches, or even claims to match, the original. You cannot identify any such text, thus your claim that the original texts have been perfectly 100% transmitted is proven false.When has a perfect match of every manuscript or even one been a requirement for textual criticism? We would actually need the autographs to meet your standard. Not even your own church makes such a demand.
This is simply a red-herring. Please stick to the topic at hand.Where is the perfect teachings recorded by the apostles for Sola Ecclesia? That isn't even written anywhere.
Nestle-Aland is not Protestant. There are Catholics on the editorial board.Well next time you pick up the NABRE thank the Protestants Nestle-Aland......they gave you your Bible.
No, the Catechism does not teach that the current texts are 100% perfect copies of the original inspired writings. And I would appreciate it if you could kindly refrain from snide "the confessional is open" type of comments. You are better than that.You doubt the Bibles today do not contain the inspired words of God? If so you are at odds with your own catechism and the confessional is open early on Saturday.
Asked and answered.Your argument is the Scriptures are unreliable and therefore Sola Scriptura is not feasible. To get to this argument you even employed an erroneous understanding of textual criticism and unorthodox historic position. Add to that that humans cannot identify the Divine attributes of God's words and inspiration. Sure glad the folks at Pentecost did not believe this.
Asked and answered.I would refer you to your own catechism for correction.
You do the same thing that you do with respect to Scripture and your belief that they have been preserved. You pray to God with an open heart, ask him to show you the truth, and go where he takes you. I do not make the claim that one can prove as a matter of logic, history, or reason, that the Magisterium is true, or that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the truth as She claims. There are certainly very good logical and historical arguments to support these claims, but ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that calls men into the Catholic Church.Or is your point we cannot know Truth without an infallible magisterium telling us? Which is Sola Ecclesia. And where exactly do we go to confirm said magisterium is truly infallible other than saying so?
Except for the significant variances that you continue to ignore.Even the Vulgate revision had nothing to do with doctrine but the same insignificant variances mentioned twice in blue above quoted.
Please stop with the ad-hominem. You are better than that. You can argue a point without continually trying to attack the character of a person by associating him with atheists.You can't say now the Sacred Scriptures are infallible after making the argument we need the autographs to be sure of perfect transmission. Either the Scriptures are infallible or they are not. You either make the argument from your own Church catechism which affirms the OP statement or you argue from the atheist untenable argument. You can't have both.
Asked and answered.As your own catechism affirms Sacred Scriptures are directly from God, infallible and inspired that means the OP @Tree of Life has a valid argument for Sola Scriptua even from a Catholic perspective.
Using that logic, maybe there are four persons of the Holy Quadrinity. After all, the Bible doesn't explicitly say that there are three only.I was going to say something, but it really does all boil down to this. It's an idea made by men 15 centuries separated from the time of Christ.
I didn't deny that. I merely said that the concept that is called Sola Scriptura has a meaning, and that meaning is not that we are saved or not saved in some way. It is a term that means something else (which has been define here numerous times).All of life is about being saved...
All of the above can be tested by God's inspired words. Take any of the above and we can find man's tradition added to it.Sacraments, or no? Real Presence, or no? Baptismal regeneration, or no? Infant Baptism, or no? Man's will plays a role, or no? Even the deity of Jesus is plausibly debated by SS adherents. This is so simple; the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a joke! Even if there was nothing to replace it with, even if the original oral teachings and the centuries of faith and councils and beliefs in general worked out by the faithful prior to that silly doctrine played no role whatsoever in our present day practice.
Unwritten traditions?The Apostle Paul insisted that we hold fast to the Tradition of the Apostles, and so we do, by the Spirit of God.
It's your point we can only know what is inspired Scriptures by Sola Ecclesia?Who told you that Matt-Rev is the true canon... is the true canon named/stated in sacred scriptures?
Actually, the JWs and Mormons have their own "infallible" magisteriums and proclaim they have additional revelation outside Holy Scriptures. Like all cults do.But isn't this the same argument that JW's and mormons use? They all claim that God spoke to them after reading the "truth" in scriptures...
Yes, I remember that kind of reply from my childhood when somebody had "secret knowledge" that turned out to be nothing.Actually I do but I don't chase fallacious rhetoric in circles.
You avoid any error by humbly observing God's Creation fully knowing we will never fathom the depths of it as God created it.He was no doubt speaking of Copernicus, but the issue is exactly the same. History has shown how they were wrong to oppose the heliocentric theory of the solar system. But they did it on the basis of interpreting scripture as a guide to how to accept science. And they were in error. Now how do you propose that, today, we avoid making that error?
Not according to the good Cardinal's quotes.Yeah, yeah. The Catholic doctrines that are universally attested to in the ECF you reject as unsupported, so you cannot expect me to take these objections very seriously. Besides, the bodily Assumption of Mary is taught in Sacred Scripture.
Rather, they treat the bible as the overriding authority because it is from God.Well, those who believe the entire Bible is the Word of God treat the Bible as if it were God.
"Tradition" is used by Roman Catholics often as if such is actually defined. When you say Tradition which ones do you refer to?Yes, it's interesting that everyone who disagrees with us is an eisegete.
I can't imagine a Catholic thinking otherwise, at least in terms of being able to arrive at the fullest and most accurate meaning of the gospel. Scripture and Tradition are said to flow from the same source, from the revelation Christ gave at the beginning. They support and compliment each other, and, yes, God established a Church that would understand and interpret and teach from them, a Church that was born with them so to speak. That's really about all there is to it. Otherwise we have people who actually think they can just pick up the bible 1500 years later and correctly understand it without the benefit of the Church that produced and assembled and lived with it. In truth, a totally objective person picking up the bible for the first time, without any Church background and testimony to inform him, would read the bible, scratch his head, put it down and then proceed to clean the garage or something without giving it another thought.
No, if the G man was in Protestant lands his research and discovery would have been unimpeded. Scientific discovery flourished after the Reformation in Europe.Gallileo did not stop the protestant opposition to the facts about the solar system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?