Is scripture the highest authority?

[Thursday]

With the exception of a few fringe sects, like the Mormons, they don't disagree about central matters of the Christian faith; if they be those summarised in the early creeds of the Church.

Oh really.

How about salvation by faith alone?

 

[lesliedellow]

Oh really.

How about salvation by faith alone?

How about it? One of the wonders of this world is the number of Catholics who do not know their own church's theology.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/justification-by-faith.html

 

[pescador]

The King James is one of the better translations because it it is much more consistent. It seeks to use as few of variations for translating a word as possible. The more ways you translate a word, the easier it is to bias the translation. If you want a fine example of the faithfulness of King James, look at Mark: the Gospel of Mark frequently uses present tense, but the King James Bible is pretty much the only one that translates that (Young's Literal is another). For instance, in Mark 15:21, "compel" is present tense, but you won't see most translations bother with that.

NIV is a mendacious translation that is less literal for no good reason. It says "Woman, here is your son," instead of the literal, "Woman, behold your son," and "Onan knew the child would not be his," instead of the literal, "Onan knew the seed should not be his." There are countless examples of this.

The King James might punctuate strongly according to verse, but it is also still more faithful in general structure, because unlike other translations, it doesn't omit the copious use of "and" in Scripture (which very often is where the verse divisions fall).

To give an example.

And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water. And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: and let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master. And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw waterfor thy camels also, until they have done drinking. And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not.

It's because of stuff like this, that Robert Alter said the King James Version was the only translation that actually captured even a semblance of Hebrew prose.

Fine, if a semblance of Hebrew prose is what you're looking for. There is no question that the King James Version doesn't make much sense to the average English speaker/reader in the 21st Century, four hundred years after it was written. Here is some text lifted at random from Colossians 2:
KJV

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

NET:

Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead. And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he nevertheless made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions. He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days— these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!

You tell me which makes more sense to today's reader of English. God's word need to be understood.

What does "hath he quickened together" mean? Nobody uses "quickened" but everybody understands "made you alive". You have to translate the words in your mind to derive the meaning.

What does "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" mean? It means this: "a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us", as the NET says in conventional English. "was" is singular, so it must refer to the handwriting, right? Wrong. The same with "was"; the handwriting was contrary to us??

What does "he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it" mean? It means "he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross", as the NET says in plain English.

What are "meat", "drink" and "holyday"? They are, respectively "food", "drink" and "feast". Meat isn't meat; holyday isn't "holiday" misspelled, as the feasts weren't holidays. (One out of three accurate words ain't bad.)

What does "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" mean? It means "these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ". Just as the NET says.

These verses are just a small sample of scripture chosen at random. It is obvious that, while the KJV language is florid and beautiful it often doesn't mean much to the modern English speaker. S/he must continually translate in his/her mind to come up with what the Bible really says. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, "... the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and Near East throughout the Roman period." It was the normal language that people spoke throughout the New Testament world. It was not some strange, obscure language that had to be translated almost word by word, as the KJV English is to the modern English speaker/reader.

It's time to get back to what the Bible meant to the people of that era, in plain, simple, understandable language. That is what modern translations try to do. They come very close to hitting the mark, not missing it by a league.

 

[Landon Caeli]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter if we are saved by faith, works or faith and works. it doesn't matter if one leads to the other or if the other leads to the one. It's petty.

 

[Vicomte13]

The earliest evidence we have disagrees with the Textus Receptus, which you apparently think so highly of.




Did he now, and how do you know that? Had the manuscripts in his possession the authors' personal seals on them?




Yeah, well it apparently did a pretty bad job of it, given that the autographs no longer exist.

I don't think highly of the "Textus Receptus" as such. It's a Byzantine Style manuscript, missing some parts, notably Revelation.

I think highly of the Patriarchal Text, because the Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the scholarship of Mt. Athos, designated it as the authoritative text. And I think that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and the Apostolic Succession, seals the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Greek scholars of Greek laboring in God's service with him to determine, through scholarship and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, precisely which text best conveys what God wants the Church to convey.

The Patriarchal Text is the authoritative text because the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Mount Athos have both the scholarship and the apostolic seal to have the authority to pick such a thing. All other humans have less authority in the manner. Of course the Greek text selected by the ancient Greek Church is the best Greek text. Duh. A bunch of English guys, with nary a Greek monastery for 2000 miles, or Americans, 9000 miles away, are going to sort it all out in English two millennia after the fact? No. The Greek Patriarch of the Greek Church, sitting in situ and drawing on the Greek monasteries, with the seal of the Apostolic Succession, have the highest authority, education and ability in the language to decide what the Greek text IS. This is, after all, the Patriarchate in which Thessalonica and Colossia, Ephesus and Galatia, Philadelphia and all of those other places of Pauline and Johannine fame and correspondence are situated. And where they speak the language. These are the churches that Paul converted, where he sent the letters, in unbroken continuity, in their native tongue. OF COURSE they have the highest authority to decide what's what? How could they not? And the apostolic succession and it's a slam dunk.

The Textus Receptus is good BECAUSE it's Byzantine Text Type. It more or less matches the Patriarchal Text. Also, the KJV is translated (mostly) from just one manuscript, which is itself good, because it means that the game of picking and choosing by scholars to possibly get a recension that will produce the desired theological result is obviated.

The Alexandrian text type is older, in terms of oldest manuscript age, that's true, though there are examples of very old Byzantine text type variants, and the Vetus Latina (which everybody acknowledges is really old, as it was replaced circa 400 AD by the Vulgate) frequently matches the Byzantines. But yes, the oldest complete manuscripts come out of Egypt, and they're pretty good. They have less of the trinitarian proof texts, which may be why the Alexandrians were more prone to veer off into monophysitism. The text type may not be older, we just have more complete older examples of it, because the weather in Egypt is hot and dry. The weather in Constantinople and Western Asia minor is wetter.

Probably the Peshitta is older than the Alexandrian type, at least parts of it, but that's not Greek at all. Certainly the Patriarch of Antioch has the best authority to the one choosing Peshitta type.

Of course, the Greek Orthodox don't disagree about their text, and neither do the Antiochan Orthodox. It's only when attempting to speak in these cross-denominational discussions, concerning translation into English (the language of most of Protestantism) that "Which text" even becomes an issue.

If you wish to use the Alexandrine type, by all means do so.

The more interesting question is whether the Massoretic Text or the Septuagint is the proper authority for the Old Testament, considering that the oldest complete Old Testament manuscripts are Alexandrine Septuagints from the mid 300s, a full 650 years older than the oldest complete Hebrew Massoretic Texts (codices Aleppo and Leningradensis).

So, which is more authoritative, post-Christian Hebrew recensions from 1000 years after Christ, or pre-Christian Jewish Greek recensions from a century and a half before Christ?

Certainly if you compare all of the times when Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Jewish Scripture to the Septuagint and the Massoretic Texts, where the Hebrew and Greek differ, about 8 out of 10 times they quote the Greek LXX and not the Massoretic style Hebrew. 1 out of ten they quote what appears to have been the Massoretic variant, and 1 out of 10 times it's neither.

So, on what should the Old Testament translations be based? The Massoretic Text or the Septuagint? With Jerome's Latin Vulgate, he went with the Hebrew, but the Hebrew he was using was not the Massoretic text. The Massoretes would not be around for another 500 years. He was using Hebrew from the great libraries of the East, and Jews of the time, and the Vulgate OT almost always agrees with the LXX version, even though it is translated from Hebrew.

The Dead Sea Scrolls present only portions of the Hebrew of every book except Isaiah, and there are some that are the Massoretic version, some that are the Septuagint version (but in Hebrew instead of Greek) and some that are neither but that match Jerome.

So, which is authoritative? Well, I'd say that the Patriarchal Text is for the Greek New Testament. The LXX of Alexandria for the Greek Old Testament, with comparisons to the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, the Massoretic Text - and where there are differences, with the Vulgate as the final tiebreaker authority (which ends up meaning the LXX 9 of 10 times). The Peshitta for the Aramaic text.

And in the comparison between Greek Patriarchal Text, Alexandria, Vulgate and Peshitta the most authoritative is? Set them side by side - see where Alexandria and Constantinople differ, and the Vulgate is the tiebreaker, because of the particular authority of Jerome, and the primacy of Rome. Then add in whatever is different from the Peshitta. In general, the big difference between Peshitta and the others is that the Greek and Latin don't distinguish the word "lord", which is used in the Old Testament for YHWH, and New Testament for Jesus. But in the New Testament, the Peshitta, drawing from the Aramaic distinction made by the speakers, does make the distinction between when "lord" means Jesus, and when it means YHWH.

So, the blending and blurring that occurs in the Greek and Latin is unblurred in the Peshitta Aramaic, and when the text is referring to the Lord Jesus, and when it is referring to the Lord YHWH, is clear. Interestingly, at one point, it has the YHWH Jesus, with no Lord at all.

Which is most authoritative?
Peshitta, Patriarchal Text, Alexandrine Text and Vulgate are all of equal authority, because each come from Patriarchal decisions in the apostolic success and the see of Peter, and they don't make a theological difference that God cared about, or he wouldn't have had the great variance.

Truth is, the key texts are the words that proceed out of the mouth of God, which is to say, what Jesus said - and that's not materially different. The extra lines in some don't detract, and are authentic, because of the authority of the Patriarch whence the text was vouchsafed.

And Enoch, from Ethiopia? Probably the same, but not important except for history. Jesus is Lord, and the Father said from heaven to follow HIM - and all the miracles since are about HIM - so we really don't need to resolve all of the manuscript conflicts, just to focus on what he said, and did, and still has been doing.

It is, however, important to be abreast of the 5 or six different strands of manuscript tradition, because otherwise people with a lot of zeal and a case to make will try to make a case for scholarship superseding patriarchal authority.

If that were true, then Mary wouldn't be important. But considering that God sent her to Lourdes, and the girl who saw her there has been dead for 140 years and still hasn't decayed, and hundreds of Jesus-scale healing miracles have happened there before the eyes of modern medicine, it simply won't do to just dismiss the direct testimony of God in our days.

Mary as envoy isn't in the Scripture, but it's part of revelation because we see the miracles still. So we have to go with it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Mary as envoy isn't in the Scripture, but it's part of revelation because we see the miracles still. So we have to go with it.

Not after God grants you the truth and 'revelation' that all those were demonic deceptions and/or manmade deceptions and lies.

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't think highly of the "Textus Receptus" as such. It's a Byzantine Style manuscript, missing some parts, notably Revelation.

I think highly of the Patriarchal Text, because the Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the scholarship of Mt. Athos, designated it as the authoritative text. And I think that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and the Apostolic Succession, seals the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Greek scholars of Greek laboring in God's service with him to determine, through scholarship and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, precisely which text best conveys what God wants the Church to convey.

You are prepared to swallow your church's claim to absolute authority. We have got that by now.

 

[pescador]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter if we are saved by faith, works or faith and works. it doesn't matter if one leads to the other or if the other leads to the one. It's petty.

It's not petty at all. Nothing in the Bible or God's kingdom is petty. We are saved by God's grace, period. One cannot be saved by earning it, otherwise God would be obligated. He isn't!

 

[Vicomte13]

Not after God grants you the truth and 'revelation' that all those were demonic deceptions and/or manmade deceptions and lies.

Don't blaspheme the works of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Vicomte13]

You are prepared to swallow your church's claim to absolute authority. We have got that by now.

And you're sure you're right. We've got that by now too. So, what's there to talk about? We will agree on nothing. Fighting is pointless. Let's go in peace then.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Fine, if a semblance of Hebrew prose is what you're looking for. There is no question that the King James Version doesn't make much sense to the average English speaker/reader in the 21st Century, four hundred years after it was written.

Then use the ESV or the RSV. There is no King James/NIV dichotomy. The NIV is a foul translation, you don't need to use it just because you don't want to use the King James Bible.

The reason it doesn't "make sense" is mainly because the education system is abysmal. We should be able to understand Shakespeare, which means the King James Bible ought to be a breeze (since it uses a much, much smaller vocabulary than Shakespeare, and is in parataxis style as opposed Shakespeare's syntaxis). Also note that the King James Bible didn't shy away from using idioms that are purely Biblical, such as "he knew her" (sex), and "seed" (for descendants). People did not talk like that in everyday speech in the early 17th Century, but the King James Bible didn't change these idioms to pander. This was back when most people had zero education outside their trade, they commonly didn't even know how to read, they heard the Bible being read by the preacher or by a member of their family could read. They didn't find these idioms a stumbling block; to understand them, you either asked, or you studied the Bible harder--and guess what, if you asked those people, even the uneducated ones, if the Bible should be less literally translated to make it easier, do you think they would agree? No, they held the Bible as sacred.

The Bible is not meant to be baroque (and in fact this translation, though during the Baroque period, completely forgoes Baroque period prose to follow Biblical style); on the other hand, it's not meant to be Fun with Dick and Jane. The Bible is simple, yet sophisticated, it includes a lot of literary devices and wordplay, these aren't frills, they are conveying a worldview, a way of looking at things. While simplifying the Bible is tempting so it can "reach a wider audience", we must keep in mind that the Bible is not a magazine for an airport, it is not meant to be readily comprehended, it is meant to be studied extensively and for your understanding to grow with the study. If you don't even have the patience to study the Bible enough to understand Early Modern English (which plenty of fairly uneducated Christians do, since it is not another language, it's just a variant of modern English), then it's unlikely you have the patience and concentration to study the Bible as deeply as it is intended to be studied.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It's not petty at all. Nothing in the Bible or God's kingdom is petty. We are saved by God's grace, period. One cannot be saved by earning it, otherwise God would be obligated. He isn't!

That's nice.

While others argue over semantics, traditions and denominations, I'll be busy living out my faith in peace, or at least trying to.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Don't blaspheme the works of the Holy Spirit.

You haven't mentioned anything holy so far.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Petty religious fights... God is ashamed that Christians would act this way.

Fundamentalist brains lack conscience.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I better stick with the news and current events, it's more peaceful there... Which is odd to say the least.

 

[Landon Caeli]

...this is what happens when everyone wants to be a preacher. It's tribal mentality.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

So God is a physical entity on Earth.

Don't forget he also speaks the truth directly to Catherineanne so we must trust every word she says.

This may sound crass, but it exemplifies the problem of people using God/Holy Spirit as their personal source of authority. The result is anyone can say anything, claiming God inspired them with the truth. There is no proof that what a person says is truth from God though. Further the source of truth that all teachings should be tested against is scripture.

Even Jesus defended his authority in speaking God's word with the mentioning of the O.T. concept of multiple witnesses to testify to ones authority and truth.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

In retaliation to gang bashing "Scripture-Only" fundamentalists, I wrote, Crossing the River Jordan and I have bashed back! I would like to see if you come out clean!!!

 

[Propianotuner]

Oh really.

How about salvation by faith alone?

This is such an unhelpful and far too common phrase, even used by Reformed believers. A phrase that more precisely expresses Reformation theology on it's own terms, instead of outside voices that are only familiar enough to present a straw filled version of Reformation theology: justification, by God, through faith alone.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Do Catholics and Orthodox understand what it means to be saved by faith and grace of the LORD? It just means that as long as Christians have the Spirit, sin no longer has power over them hence saved by faith through grace. The Spirit conforms us to his ways and to the Divine. Even though Christians will still battle with sin the Holy Spirit makes it easier to overcome it. So when you are led by the spirit you are stronger than a person led by the lustful desires of man's nature, That's all! Do I make sense :/