Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jude 14 "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 not execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
2 Peter 2:4 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;"
Jude 1:14-15 (NASB) “It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
1 Enoch 1:9 (R.H Charles) “And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Now I won’t get into all the technical grammar and syntax of these texts so as to lose the forest for a few trees. Suffice it to say, there are 21 phrases and vocabulary words shared between 1 Enoch 1:9 and Jude 1:14-15. Moreover, Jude edited and abbreviated a 45 word text in 1 Enoch 1:9 down to 34 words in Jude 1:14-15.
No, I do not NOW admit. I've always stated and have quoted scholars who say that it's not 100 percent. And I don't think you know much about textual criticism at all whether you care about my opinion or not. Once again you made the claim in post 170 that ''Educated biblical scholars admit there is no way of knowing what the original manuscripts of each book of the NT was like to recognize which texts we have today are correct or in error.'' And that is either a lie on your part or a statement made in ignorance. I've quoted top textual critics (readers see post #223) who attest to the reliability of our present NT.
Your original claim was not that the New Testament is not 100 percent accurate. Your original claim was that educated biblical scholars admit there is no way of knowing what the original manuscripts were like in order to determine whether the NT we have is correct or in error. And this shows a complete lack of understanding of even the purpose of NT textual criticism.
All you are doing now is changing your argument and misrepresenting me trying to defend your position.
Not at all. My point was that since we don’t have the original manuscripts, we can’t know what the Bible said exactly . It was made as part of the larger discussion on sola scriptura and the infallibility of the Bible . Keep things in the context of the thread please . My post addressed the thread .
Not at all. My point was that since we don’t have the original manuscripts, we can’t know what the Bible said exactly . It was made as part of the larger discussion on sola scriptura and the infallibility of the Bible . Keep things in the context of the thread please . My post addressed the thread .
I've addressed the claim you made in post 170 of this thread. A claim which is demonstrably wrong. And now that it's been addressed and people can read this little discussion, which never should have taken place in the first place, nothing more needs to be said.
I've addressed the claim you made in post 170 of this thread. A claim which is demonstrably wrong. And now that it's been addressed and people can read this little discussion, which never should have taken place in the first place, nothing more needs to be said.
Sorry, but you cannot prove that we are 100% sure of the Bible being exact with the originals while at the same time admitting that there are passages in the Bible that don’t belong there . My claim remains . None of us can know that the Bible is exactly as the original manuscripts . Since you are likely to continue down this path until I address it , let me go back to my words your want to debate now after we have successfully shown the Bible contains dubious passages . Here is my post , with the pertinent part bolded .
Educated biblical scholars admit there is no way of knowing what the original manuscripts of each book of the NT was like to recognize which texts we have today are correct or in error.
The bolded part is important . It is the point of my claim . We cannot KNOW if there is error because we cannot compare to the originals. How close we think we come is irrelevant . We cannot compare them to the originals to know how correct we are . This is the point of my statement , regardless of what you try to turn it into now that we have established there are likely admitted errors in the Bible
But yes, since you admit that the Bible contains things that likely weren’t in the originals , nothing more needs to be said .
Last edited by NatesDude; 10-30-2021 at 05:05 PM..
The EOB, English translation of the Greek Patriarchal text:
About these people, Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, "to execute judgement on all, and to convict all the ungodly among them of all their works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
I want to share a refutation of sola scriptura by Eric Sammons. He shared it in a twitter thread, and here's the text of it:
"Did you know that many Protestants don't consider the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) to be part of authoritative Scripture? It's well-known that this passage is not found in the most ancient manuscripts, and no early Fathers commented on the passage. Many scholars today believe it was inserted much later. Because of this, many Protestants therefore don't consider it as authoritative Scripture.
Some Protestant translations footnote it or put it in smaller type. Some commentaries put it in an appendix. And one Greek NT produced by a Protestant publisher doesn't even include it at all! One commentator flatly states, 'If any item of doctrine depends solely on anything in this passage for its support, it cannot claim scriptural authority.'
This gets to the heart of the problem of sola scriptura: who has authority to say what's in the Bible and what's not? Who's the authority behind the 'sole' authority?
Catholics accept John 7:53-8:12 as canonical not because of textual attestation, but because the Church has declared it part of the canon. What's ironic is that this is how the Protestants originally came up with their canon: they took what the Catholic Church declared canonical and made a few subtractions (i.e., the 'deuterocanonical' books of the OT).
Before the days of textual criticism, their canon included John 7:53-8:12. But now that modern scholars are questioning if that was really in the original Gospel of John, there's a problem of who decides if that's really part of the canon or not. By denying the original source of authority for the canon, Protestants are now beholden to modern historical-critical methodologies to determine if a passage is truly Scripture or not, and that field is rife with problems and division.
John 7:53-8:12 could have been written by someone other than John; it could have been inserted later, but it doesn't matter—we Catholics know that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit because the Church led by that Spirit says so. Sadly, Protestants have no such assurance."
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
If you believe this to be true, where in the Bible do you find it taught? Personally, I don't believe it's there. Yes, the Bible does say, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." but that's not saying that the Bible is a complete record of God's dealings with mankind. That's kind of like saying that "all grapes are fruit" is comparable to saying, "Grapes are the only fruit."
When the current Canon of scripture was closed, I don't imagine that anyone thought these books we have here are all there is. That there is nothing else worthy of consideration.
Sola Scriptura does not say that instruction, inspiration, correction, reproof etc...
can ONLY be found in the canon of scripture.
It is however a collection of writings that we all seem to agree are authoritative.
I want to share a refutation of sola scriptura by Eric Sammons. He shared it in a twitter thread, and here's the text of it:
"Did you know that many Protestants don't consider the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) to be part of authoritative Scripture? It's well-known that this passage is not found in the most ancient manuscripts, and no early Fathers commented on the passage. Many scholars today believe it was inserted much later. Because of this, many Protestants therefore don't consider it as authoritative Scripture.
Some Protestant translations footnote it or put it in smaller type. Some commentaries put it in an appendix. And one Greek NT produced by a Protestant publisher doesn't even include it at all! One commentator flatly states, 'If any item of doctrine depends solely on anything in this passage for its support, it cannot claim scriptural authority.'
This gets to the heart of the problem of sola scriptura: who has authority to say what's in the Bible and what's not? Who's the authority behind the 'sole' authority?
Catholics accept John 7:53-8:12 as canonical not because of textual attestation, but because the Church has declared it part of the canon. What's ironic is that this is how the Protestants originally came up with their canon: they took what the Catholic Church declared canonical and made a few subtractions (i.e., the 'deuterocanonical' books of the OT).
Before the days of textual criticism, their canon included John 7:53-8:12. But now that modern scholars are questioning if that was really in the original Gospel of John, there's a problem of who decides if that's really part of the canon or not. By denying the original source of authority for the canon, Protestants are now beholden to modern historical-critical methodologies to determine if a passage is truly Scripture or not, and that field is rife with problems and division.
John 7:53-8:12 could have been written by someone other than John; it could have been inserted later, but it doesn't matter—we Catholics know that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit because the Church led by that Spirit says so. Sadly, Protestants have no such assurance."
If only that were true, Mike, our disagreements would disappear, but it is NOT true. You do not know what the Holy Spirit IS. It is not some supernatural person. It is a state of mind that reflects the "character" of its Spirit. In the case of God, the Holy Spirit is the character of God's consciousness - The "mind of God." Our ONLY source of its "character" is the "mind of Christ." I put the explanation in my blog.
Instead of Sola Scriptura, we should all be guided by Solus Spiritus Sanctus as revealed and demonstrated by Jesus on the Cross. If your Catholic Church and it leaders were actually guided by the Holy Spirit (in the states of mind associated with the Holy Spirit) they would not believe or teach the primitive and barbaric nonsense that they do and have done over the millennia!
To review,
Philippians 2:5-30 King James Version
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
The Holy Spirit IS the True Nature of God revealed, described, and demonstrated unambiguously by Jesus. He IS agape love, kindness, mercy, compassion, gentleness, unconditional acceptance, empathy, sympathy, tolerance, long-suffering, decency, friendliness, peacefulness, joyfulness, understanding, care, concern, solicitude, solicitousness, sensitivity, tender-heartedness, soft-heartedness, warm-heartedness, warmth, love, brotherly love, tenderness, gentleness, mercifulness, leniency, lenience, consideration, kindness, humanity, humaneness, kind-heartedness, charity, benevolence, and He is non-judgmental.
When we are in the states of mind associated with the "mind of Christ" we are guided by His Holy Spirit and cannot do anything wrong. We can only do wrong in other states of mind. We are to read the scriptures using the "mind of Christ" using His agape love and forgiveness, NOT wrath to see what Jesus (and the prophets) actually were trying to tell us, NOT what our primitive ancestors THOUGHT they were trying to tell us using their primitive beliefs about their wrathful War God. That is how you study to show yourself approved using the Holy Spirit.
I stand corrected. I incorrectly referred to" prima scriptura"
Sola Scriptura:
"Sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, biblical commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
