Oddbean

But how do you *know* that? 🤣 Attacking a means of argumentation is a cheap way of avoiding actually considering the argument. My point stands that KJVOnlyism is a subset of Sola Scriptura, which is itself untenable, as I have shown. Modern scriptural scholarship, regardless of specific faith affiliation, is infiltrated by unfaithful scholars. This is why it is important to be familiar with older scholarship when studying. The Latin never changes, and if I'm not mistaken that full translation predates the Canon. That is the translation of texts that were decided, promulgated, and ratified. Original manuscripts of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew are not always available, so when they aren't we always have the Latin. It is also important to point out that "biblical study" is not Christianity. Having better and more faithful translations is good but not the point of the Faith. Study can enhance one's faith, but it ought not be the faith to study (see 1 Cor 13). The point of the Faith is to become Christ-like, or little Christs as "Christian" suggests. We follow His lead, taking up our cross, etc. We follow His commands: love God, love neighbor, baptize all the nations, etc. We receive His offering of His Body and Blood. This is Christianity. This is The Way.

>Christianity predates the Bible In the sense that Adam and Eve were Christians, sure. But if you're suggesting the Bible was created by the Church, your own councils disagree with you. Vatican I explicitly condemns what you're trying to say. The Church is a witness to something that already existed, nothing more. >Additionally, the original KJV includes the deuterocanon I know, mine does too. It has books that the Council of Trent removed, like 3 Esdras. Why would the Pope remove books from the Bible? >My point stands that KJVOnlyism is a subset of Sola Scriptura They literally aren't the same thing. They're two completely unrelated claims. I'm also not a strict KJVO in the way someone like Steven Anderson, but it's undoubtedly the most important English version, for more reasons than you can count on one hand. I make it a point not to argue sola scriptura. Not because it's wrong, understood properly, but because people on both sides refuse to understand it properly, so it's a useless hill to die on. >The Latin never changes Buy a critical edition. It does. You have old Latin, and tons of variation within the Latin tradition, often referred to as the Western text type. It's actually famous for being the most inaccurate text family that gets any serious consideration. In current day, Latin editions have the exact same problems as modern Greek critical texts. Though an Old Vulgate only position will get you better results than following modern text critics, due to the nature of what a translation is, it's inherently inferior to my position. Eastern Orthodox have it better, they have their own version of a Greek Received Text that's different from ours, although on internal analysis, it doesn't hold up as well. Romans has a false ending after chapter 14, for example. It's also missing the Comma. >that full translation predates the Canon Roman Catholics really need to read the studies of Roger Beckwith. This idea is disproven. The Old Testament canon was decided 200 years before Christ was born. The fact that later Christians (and some jews) were misinformed and got it wrong does nothing to disprove this. Although most of the early Fathers actually do agree that the canon is only 22 books (by the Hebrew numbering) so no matter how you look at it, the Roman Catholic theory of canon doesn't hold up. Nevermind the blatant historical errors in the books. >Original manuscripts of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew are not always available, so when they aren't we always have the Latin. The Latin is better than nothing, but once printed editions become a relatively affordable thing, there's no reason to use it as a primary source anymore. It has a lot of problems. >"biblical study" is not Christianity It's literally the word of God. It doesn't encompass the entirety of the Christian life, but you can't have orthodoxy without it.

Apparently you haven't read the Fathers either. When they're arguing these issues, around both Nicaea and Constantinople I, their citations are almost entirely from Scripture. At least read a single book before defending a position that relies so heavily on historical literacy.

It has support but is not explicitly in Holy Scripture. Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity because they can't find it in their bibles. Jesus didn't write the New Testament. His followers did, and *all of* His teachings were believed before they were written.

And that is just one more of the reasons why no one should meddle with the Holy Scriptures. Even less so heretics who consciously opted for changing sentences and ripping books out on a whim. Once you read "History of the heresies and their refutations", from Saint Alphonse-Marie de Ligório, you will see how well documented is the whole process of the protestant stupidity and arrogance.

Why do all Roman Catholics lie about the Bible? Yes, the Trinity is explicitly in Scripture. To attempt to deny this is so ridiculous that you should have your Internet privileges revoked. The state should literally, physically rip the cables out of the ground that connect to your house. All you're doing is revealing that you've never actually read or comprehended the Bible, which you also pretend to believe is from God. Moreover, as I mentioned before, it's just patently false. The Fathers who formulated the doctrine explicitly did so on the basis of Scripture. Your take is historically illiterate, in addition to being Biblically illiterate. No one cares what Oneness Pentecostals believe. You may as well be appealing to Muslims or Buddhists. Personal opinions have no relevance to what's actually there.

You are not even creative. All of your errors have been made by protestants and answered by real scholars. Here https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-curious-case-of-the-protestant-bible And here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/protestantisms-old-testament-problem

You haven't made any arguments, you're a literal retard. Both of you deserve less attention from me than you got, you have both obviously put near zero effort into considering your positions. I'm not an academic, and I am leagues ahead of both of you in terms of familiarity with the history, the academia, and your own dogma. You both conveniently glossed over the fact that Rome's officially endorsed Biblical commentary endorses gay sex btw.

@James Lewis the fun thing is: you didn't even address the counterpoints to your lose sentences. What you said does not hold together. You have been offered resources and written arguments for you to make considerations you clearly missed on your statements and others needed to fundament critical thinking regarding your claims.

@James Lewis @Aspartame As concerning who the Israelites tempted in the wilderness, 1 Corinthians 10:9 identifies Christ, Hebrews 3:7-9 identifies the Holy Ghost, Psalm 95 identifies Jehovah. Christ prays to the Father, while also saying He is one with the Father. Whichever way you harmonise these facts will lead you to upholding the Godhead.

It's a bad look when you can't actually address anything I'm saying, btw. You'd do better to say nothing at all. You've run into someone who actually knows what he's talking about, no Jesuit tricks will work on me.

> It's literally the word of God. What does Holy Scripture says is the Word? John 1 says In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh. It doesn't say the Word, which became flesh, has then become written. The written word is not God, which would be a Bibliolotry of which I find much of Protestantism guilty. It is holy, and it is God's word—yes, He is the ultimate Author—but I would be careful to say it is not The Word, especially as it says The Word is something other than itself. I worship God—the Father, the Son Who is the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit—not the written word of God. I believe in the written word of God, but I know it is not God. To study the scriptures is good and holy, but it is not what the whole of the Christian faith is about. That would veer into Bibliolotry. > Vatican I explicitly condemns what you're trying to say. The Church is a witness to something that already existed, nothing more. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" as the Scriptures say. It is witness and custodian of Holy Tradition. That Holy Tradition is originally oral and over the lives of the Apostles became also written. That written Tradition is Holy Scripture. The Church needed God's inspiration and authority to do this. The Church predates the written and compiled Bible, but not Holy Tradition. The Church is founded by Christ upon the Apostles in His Holy Tradition.

Cool, thanks for stating the corporate position that literally everyone has already heard. I could have done something infinitely more useful with my time, like watch the grass grow, or shoot myself in both eyes with a bb gun, but I read this instead. We're done, you're not a serious person.

there is a religion of the book, where the printed word is everything. It is called Islam. And even it has hadith. no normative text may function without an authority, not just to decide what is cannon, but also how to interpret it. that is not a limitation of God, it is a limitation of human language. no law works without judges - no law can be universal, cover all cases beyond reasonable doubt, without an authority to read it under some tradition, considering some sources and precedents, etc.. we can not make a self-referential universal law for a golf club, without leaving space for "disputes and doubtfull cases will be settled by <some internal authority>, or the civil courts of <some place>..." I even doubt God could do it in a reasonable size using human language. The Bible is not just a historical text... from it comes normative stuff. A text, even written by God, can not tell by itself what we ought to do without an authority to interpret and confirm it. Who decided we should move the sabath to sunday? Or forget the Jewish Temple? These are on the Bible, and we do not follow them.

I never really cared about translation troubles. Even in Eusebius of Cesarea's book it was clear some hardwork was involved, priests travelling around getting old manuscripts, interviewing old guys, trying to do their best... And submiting their work to the supervision and final decision of the bishops. The Church not only wrote the books and decided the canon, it also kept working on keeping the versions. And that before the Vulgate (no need to call it Old, the new one is the Neo- ) what is important: - it is good enough, close enough to the original text nobody will ever touch again... - because nothing really relevant is based on a single passage of the bible which might be wrong. Protestants can take important stuff from a few passages (see the pentecostals... sometimes it looks they banged their heads on the bible, read the first versicle they found, and forked a new church over it - that is the logical consequence of sola scriptura), or try to win arguments with a machine gun of biblical passages. Catholics have the tradition and magistery to suport the interpretation to make sure it does not come from a misinterpreted isolated idea from the text. if our faith depended on perfect texts, then nobody ever had any faith. Even before the vulgate, versioning stuff was hard. Even in apostolic times, each book or epistle took time to spread. Local bishops had to decide to read it on masses - that was the first litmus test. copy them, send them to other places. Versioning troubles started soon, as eusebius show. For a long time, not every place had the same books.

@Aspartame @James Lewis As concerning Sola Scriptura some also make it legalism so that things like drinking strong drink (undiluted alcohol), abortion, tattoos and playing rock music in church are permissible because despite violating Biblical principles throughout Scripture, they aren't specifically condemned in any New Testament verse (and this practising OT-NT distinction I don't buy into either aside from things specifically identified as prophetic pictures of a more glorious Body). Misunderstood it also makes KJVonly circular, because you have to go into the historical record rather than letters of Scripture to defend the belief.