THE THEORY OF SOLA SCRIPTURA
Of course sola-scriptura is not taught in the bible.
If sacred texts show us anything historically, it is that in authentic religion where there is a personal relationship with God, individuals are given personal revelations by God which, if written down, were held sacred by religious adherents. Revelation is the original source of scripture and scripture, though incredibly insightful, is not the source of original revelations by God to individuals in that personal relationship to God. Many people who came to their knowledge of God, did so without any text or written documents at all.
SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A THEORY, NOT A PRACTICE
Individuals may read ONLY the particular bible they have (instead of a different bible) but they are still dependent upon their own levels of awareness, their own level of historical and linguistic abilities and upon the type and correctness of the text they have as well as their own religious biases in assigning personal meanings to their texts. And their personal meanings may differ and conflict with the meanings assigned to the same text by other individuals reading the same or similar versions of the same text. None of us are "sola scripturists" since we bring all of these characteristics to our reading and in assigning meaning to text.
None of us come to the text with the same text that the ancients had, with the ancient religious worldviews and ancient insights, and few of us come away with exactly the same personal meanings to the same text. When we affect the text and add to it's meaning then its meaning to us is no longer "Sola" scriptural.
THE ARBITRARINESS OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE
The specific canon one adopts is somewhat arbitrary since what it's considered scripture by various individuals has always differed in various times and various geographic locations. Different people in different places and times have had different canons.
ERRORS WITHIN TEXTS AND IN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
For example, 2 Tim 3:16 has been quoted multiple times as support of sola scriptura. The problem is that there are errors in text and in interpretation of this text.
KJV 2 Tim 3:16 is quoted as
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
However this translation is incorrect since it is
not what the any version of the actual Greek text says.
The most common greek version of this text says : Πασα γραφε Θεοπνευστοσ και ωφελεμοσ προσ διδασκαλιαν, προσ ελεγχον,....
It says : "
All inspired texts [are] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, etc...." It does not tell us WHICH texts are inspired, merely that inspired texts are profitable.
Also, there is no verb for “given”, no past or perfected tense in the text. (The KJV is simply a flawed translation).
There are diffculties with simply saying that all inspired texts are useful for Christians. While one criteria for a text to deserve the title of “scripture” is that the text is a product of inspiration, the concept of personal detection of that inspiration together with the personal “valuing” of text as scripture is difficult to define in any objective manner.
For example, there is no objective “inspirometer” since revelation comes from God and his spirit, rather than from the text. While I can gain religious insight and understanding from a text or from an experience or from an observation, the deep and profound direct revelations to my spirit from the personal relationship I have with God comes from God and the holy spirit rather than from the text, from the experience or from the observations I make.
SCRIPTURE “CANONS” DIFFER IN ARBITRARY WAYS ACCORDING TO TIME PERIODS AND GEOLOGICAL LOCATIONS.
Often, the various inclusions vs exclusions in the various canons were often based on whether a text supported a specific theology. That is, a text “seems” to be inspired because it agrees with an individuals’ or a groups religious bias rather than based on an objective measurement of “inspiration”.
Luther rejects James, Erasmus accepts Esdras, Columbus
believed in, quoted from, and used non-canonical Esdras’ description of the oceans in his determination of how much water he will navigate before reaching land. Galileos Daughter uses Hermas’ “wintertime” of the righteous in her letters to her Father. In this same way that these individuals all have their different Canons based on what inspired them, how does one then measure “inspiration” as a general rule for all individuals?
INTERPRETATION OF TEXT VARIES ACCORDING TO TRANSLATORS WHO CREATE THE BIBLES WE READ AND ACCORDING TO THE READERS APPLYING DIFFERENT MEANING TO THE TEXTS
It is obvious that most of the Christians on the forum read and study and use the bible. They debate the bible and it’s verses endlessly. They interpret the verses in the bible in hundreds (if not thousands) of differing ways. They use the bible and it’s verses to justify almost every doctrine and practice under the sun. Almost all of these conflicting and sometimes opposite (or at least “opposing”) doctrines are found by their proponents to be IN the bible; supported by scripture and are then called “biblical” by their proponents.
THE MODERN “WESTERN” BIBLES ARE NOT THE SAME TEXT AS THE EASTERN BIBLES NOR IS THE MODERN TEXT THE SAME AS THE ANCIENT TEXTS.
As
@Katzpur said “
Delivered" does not mean "preserved." Both modern and ancient translators themselves, tell us that the source text of their translations as well as the textual product of their translations have mistakes and errors.
While the theory of "Sola Scriptura" is an interesting philosophical point, I've actually never seen nor met anyone who actually was able to USE "sola scriptura" in it's form as a strict source for text or as a strict source for development of doctrine or religious understanding in my life.
And, neither has any other reader on this forum.
Clear
φυζτζω
