-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Final Authority
- Thread starter James2028
- Start date
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Why is this copied wholesale from here: The Record Theory and Purified Text Theory
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is nothing more than BS dressed up in faux-academic language. It works under the supposition of sola scriptura, and under the supposition that there is some “supremely-authoritative” bible in heaven that is infallible. And, since all 1611 KJV bibles on earth concur with this “heavenly version,” All earthly versions, having been “purified” of their human errors, are also infallible. (Presumably, this gives justification for the belief that the KJV Bible fell out of the sky, having been authored by God.)
Since the heresy of sola scriptura only came about during the reformation, this can be seen as a challenge to the authority of the church (which also runs afoul of what we know of ecclesiology).
It’s a cheap attempt to lend credibility to the biblical infallibility/sola scriptura crowd. Of course, they’re welcome to believe whatever they wish, but their claims (and these) are highly disingenuous.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Authority rests with the church, which is the Body of Christ, and who wrote, edited, compiled, and canonized the texts as part of its Holy Tradition. The church has never relied solely on the texts. In fact the canon was never meant to be the final word on what could be considered “scripture.” It was only intended to be a suggested list of “stuff that’s ok to read in church.” Authority cannot, then, by definition, rest with the texts, themselves.
74x12
Well-Known Member
I don't believe either one because sola means only. So "only scripture" is not true. God still gives revelation outside of scripture although it cannot contradict the scriptures which are revelations that came before.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Pot, meet Kettle. Anyone who’s worth their scholastic salt knows that when referencing a single Psalm, “Psalm” is written in singular form, not “Psalms 12.”
They were all written before 1611.
I have a pretty good idea what you’re about. You’re a KJV only, the Bible is infallible and fell out of the sky, sola scriptura fundamentalist, judging from your posts on other forums. I’d be willing to bet that, for you, “all scripture” stops at 66 books. No Maccabees, no Wisdom, no Sirach, no Thomas.
No matter your opinion of my posts, the idea put forth in your OP is untenable, not supported by the facts, and biased.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Belief, not factually proven.
The Bible is not “God’s words.” No bible scholar worth his salt believes that. “Inspiration” And “God’s actual words” are two different things.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Apropos of nothing where this debate is concerned. Please don’t start the annoying habit of bombing the thread with a plethora of random bible passages taken out of context, in order to show us that you “know your bible.”
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
3 Corinthians...
However, what books do you consider scriptural? All of them? Enoch?
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I don’t pay much attention to the canon. When I’m in church, I use the canon favored by the church.
James2028
Member
Here is my first point.
It is dishonest to call the contents
of a book infallible scripture given
by inspiration of God, when you
actually believe that only the original
autographs were infallible scripture
given by inspiration of God.
There are no original autographs.
There never was an original Bible containing the original autographs.
It is dishonest to call the contents
of a book infallible scripture given
by inspiration of God, when you
actually believe that only the original
autographs were infallible scripture
given by inspiration of God.
There are no original autographs.
There never was an original Bible containing the original autographs.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is peurile thinking. ALL churches are “bible churches,” because all churches use and revere the Bible. It’s a false distinction.
Given what the canon was meant to be, additions aren’t nearly the emergency you make them out to be.
Unless, of course, you’re into bibliolatry and imbue the texts with more authority than they were intended to have. Historically, “Bible” has been a rather fluid concept.