Sola Scriptura & the modern versions

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by stilllearning, Apr 16, 2011.

  1. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sola Scriptura(Scripture Alone), is a wonderful declaration that many have made....
    “I am going to live by the Bible alone and not man’s opinion!”

    Therefore it seems to me, that the whole idea of this person using multiple English Bible versions(an assortment of men’s opinions), to determine what God’s Word actually says, is counter to Sola Scriptura.

    If(as I believe), the Bible says what it means and means what it says, than how can “It” say several different things!?!?!
    --------------------------------------------------
    I am not picking a fight; I just can’t see how anyone can claim to be led by Sola Scriptura, and use more than one Bible.
     
  2. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,162
    Likes Received:
    368
    The issue is that the Bible versions that we have agree with each other. Yes, there are small differences that do not make one iota of difference in theology or doctrine and it is easy to see why these differences are there with just a little quick look into translational issues.

    I believe fully 100% in Sola Scriptura. That does not mean that there is one Bible but that we use the Bible alone to learn of God. There is no contradiction in using multiple versions at all. My daughter has been critically ill for the last week and a half. We have spoken to many doctors who have all looked at the same test results. They have interpreted them slightly differently in their explanation of what is going on but they all agree with each other. They just may use different terms to let us know what is going on. One says she has an 8.5 cm. mass on her pancreas. The other says she has a large mixed mass on her pancreas. The last says that she has a baseball-sized tumor on the tail of her pancreas. Each one is saying the same thing about the tumor but just in different words. Neither one is wrong yet none used the same terminology. We saw this consistently with the doctors since we were dealing with 3 different experts in this field. But they all agreed with not only the diagnosis but the treatment - again, using different words.

    Different Bible versions do not compromise the validity of Sola Scriptura.
     
  3. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    454
    From the preface to the 1611 KJV 'From the Translators to the Reader.'
    Steve
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,969
    Likes Received:
    128
    Really Stilllearning, do you ever stop to consider the implications of your wild imagination?

    Wouldn't every translation be considered "man's opinion"?

    Every translation brings out something different.
    A translation is an imperfect way to communicate the meaning of the original message in another foriegn language.

    Having many different translations allows a reader to see deeper into the text'
    ...a still better way would be to learn the original language.

    Rob
     
    #4 Deacon, Apr 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2011
  5. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    So did God mean for us to understand all this through the use of one and only one particular version of the Bible?
     
  6. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    We don't have the original manuscripts. All we have in English is a translation. Any translation will have some man's opinion over which word should be translated.
     
  7. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Well two thoughts here:

    1. This isn't what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura posits.

    2. Any translation is, in many ways, a man's (or men's) opinion on any number of issue per word.

    Yeah, you are misunderstanding the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

    Hahaha, that's a good one! :applause:

    Again this isn't the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Besides, frankly if you want to live by the closest words to the inspired text given to the authors we should use the best textual basis. Right now, with recent discoveries included, we have the CT to about 99.99995% accurate to the autographs.

    The TR isn't anywhere near that ballpark.
     
  8. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    You started out well and it went all downhill from there.

    Sols Scripture has nothing to do with Bible versions.
     
  9. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi Stilllearning, trusting in scripture alone, and not in the traditions of men, which add to scripture is sound doctrine. Do we rely on what we think the bible says, or on what we think the Bible says, plus what men had said, i.e church traditions. Think confessions and creeds. These are second hand "scripture" and the doctrine says we do not rely on them.

    That is why when you read a Baptist document that says "what we believe" you will see references to God's word for every assertion. So we can look at the basis and determine whether we believe the support actually says what the second hand declaration says.

    Our bibles are based on copies of the original writings, but as far as we know, none of the original writings still exist. We have a few fragments of the new testament that are less than 50 years older than when we think the original documents were written, and we have lots of copies, so by comparing the copies, we have come up with what we believe is the best version, the one that reflects most closely what the original author's wrote.

    The fly in the buttermilk is that this "best version" of the original autographs is not one version, but several. The King James translation is based on a "best version" that is not the same as the New American Standard Bible translation, which uses a different "best version."

    In response to this difficulty, many bible students look at several translations, such as the NASB, the ESV, the HCSB, the NKJV and the NIV to come to an understanding shared by many spirit led believers as to what the original author was saying in a particular passage or verse. So the study of several translations is actually an effort to adhere to the doctrine of Scripture alone.

    Now the problem is some who have stopped searching for the truth, because they think they know the truth, simply shop for among the translations to find the one that most closely says what they want the verse to say. This is the opposite of the scripture alone behavior.
     
    #9 Van, Apr 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2011
  10. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good morning Van, and thank you for this clear and civil response.
    (It is much appreciated.)

    I think this is the first time that I have spoken to you, so if it is, welcome to the BB.
    -------------------------------
    Lets talk about “the fly in the buttermilk”.

    You pointed out, how there are differing opinion as to which is the “best version”(best copies of the original autographs), that we should be using.

    Well....I use two methods, to determine which one is best;
    1) The one that has been tested by time: (The TR has been time tested and for “hundreds” of years). And God’s people(who had the Holy Spirit in them), fully trusted the TR to be “God’s preserved” Word.
    (The only exception being a few unbelieving eggheads.)

    2) God’s Warning about the last days.......
    2Timothy 3:12-14
    V.12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
    V.13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
    V.14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];


    This warning should not be ignored or overlooked, when determining what or who should be trusted today.
    -------------------------------------
    Also, you said......
    This is unwise for these students, because for the most part, every one of these versions, come from the same source(the CT), so all they are getting are different degrees of error.


    I have a lot more to say, in response to you post, but.........I really have to go right now.

    See you later
     
  11. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi Stilllearning, I made a good faith effort to answer your question, but you disagree with my take. That is fine, I am often wrong. I am going to stick with the CT but cross check it against the TR because that represents what I believe is the best way to seek the truth God has presented in His Word.

    God Bless and Goodbye
     
  12. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are such an expert at slapping those with whom you disagree with a velvet glove. :rolleyes:
     
  13. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    No it hasn't been. The TR was created by (a Roman Catholic humanist) Erasmus who pieced together the available documents and then back-translated from Latin into Greek the places he didn't have anything. It then was made normative by royal fiat in England (by a homos3xual king) and has been thoroughly discredited in the centuries that have followed. A little history here is important.

    Why would "God's preserved Word" be in disagreement with the majority of textual sources from within two hundred years of the composition of the original documents?

    How is it that you get to challenge the faith of good men of God who point out that the TR isn't as good a source document for translation as the CT? How is it you have the spiritual position to say they are unsaved people?

    Please list for us how the modern versions persecute people who accept the TR. Please list for us how the modern versions teach a different faith than the KJV. Please list for us how we are living in the last days because of the use of modern versions.

    This is such a deeply, deeply disingenuous post. Why is it that anyone who ask honest questions and challenges your view of a doctrine like Sola Scriptura, which you (incorrectly) leverage as a challenge to modern versions doesn't, is viewed as uncharitable?
     
  14. michael-acts17:11

    michael-acts17:11
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    0
    stilllearning, which TR do you use? The 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535, 1546, 1549, or 1550?
     
  15. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its simple. The Good translations all say the same thing. They may use different words or sentence structure, but our language is so varied and complex I could write a novel using ten different styles and you would you would find out that they all say the same thing. Read different Good translations (notice I always say Good because there are bad ones we have discussed) you will get the exact same message. So, there are no problems that I can see.
     
  16. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not a true representation of sola scriptura. This doctrine means that Scripture is the final authority, not that you won't take anything else into account. This was the view of the reformers.

    God gave us in the original language exactly what he wanted us to have. There are many ways to translate those thoughts that all have accurate meanings. Plus, words change.

    If you want the original words, learn Hebrew and Greek.

    Oh...sorry...there are no known surviving original manuscripts.

    Guess we have to rely on God.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    How? Quite easily,if one remembers that many Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew words/phrases have multiple correct English meanings. Restricting oneself to just one version makes one dependent upon one set of translators' opinions, insteada a broad view of what the Scriptures really say in their original languages.

    And telling others that there's only ONE valid English Bible translation is simply telling a LIE.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Still learning, were YOU there when any of the extant ancient Scriptural mss were written? Can you tell us just WHO wrote them? Can you name their SOURCES? If you answer "No" to any of these questions, you have no right nor authority to declare this ms or set of mss valid and that ms or set of mss bogus.

    The whole false KJVO doctrine is based upon such guesswork and opinion, and no FACT. Its advocates CANNOT escape the TRUTH that the KJVO doctrine has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, and its current edition is derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book. Thus, they try to lead us down such bunny trails as this one to attempt to steer attention away from these basic truths which effectively kill their doctrine.
     
  19. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Coney Trails Ad Infinitum

    Some thoughts on translations:
    1. The original autographs are God-breathed. No originals are known to exist. Yet, the Word of God abides forever--preserved by The Holy Spirit in the pillar and ground of The Truth(not the holy see).
    2. There are hundreds of copies from various time periods. Some are more consistent than others.
    3. Translations are not inspired. They have the biases of the translators and their behestors; i.e. the KJV and revisions were ordered by the King of England(a pedobaptist). When the KJV translators came to BAPTIZO in the Greek, they transliterated the word to BAPTIZE instead of translating to IMMERSE which is the basic meaning of the Gk word. This would be consistent with their practice of sprinkling infants. They were pedobaptists too. They also had difficulty with pascha, passover, which was translated: Easter, a grossly pagan word.
    4. All things considered, the Geneva Bible, from which the KJV seems to have been derived, is among the best. Some say there was a church of 37 souls on the Mayflower, 1620, Plymouth Rock--they used the Geneva.
    5. There are two streams of copies out there. One of them is seriously corrupted. The holy see was not the only one with copies of scripture. Praise the Lord, He has preserved the Received Text.
    6. Understanding the scripture is kind of like what Jesus told Nicodemus: You must be born again. Nicodemus had no spiritual discernment; yet he was a Master(Doctor of Divineness) of Israel.
    7. We have no excuse for not knowing what God said.
    8. The traditions of man always lead to the ditch--The Word of God is the lamp for the feet to trod the straight and narrow.
    9. Sola scriptura was in effect long before Martin Luther was born.

    Peace,

    Bro. James
     
    #19 Bro. James, Apr 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2011
  20. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi robycop3

    You said.......
    So, how many Bible’s do you think there are?
    --------------------------------------
    You next presented me with three interesting questions.......
    Probably no, to all three of these questions;
    But it doesn’t matter, because I trust the LORD, to have kept His Word for me.

    Then you said.......
    I haven’t declared ANYTHING! I have just stated my opinion and presented the evidence that supports that opinion.
    ---------------------------------------
    Next you make three erroneous statements....
    Assuming there is such a thing as a “KJVO doctrine”, it is based upon facts.
    (Some of which, have been stated in this very thread.)

    Wrong. It has lots of Scriptural support;
    Here is one example.........
    Psalms 12:6-7
    V.6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    V.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


    I can’t answer that, because I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    Then you said.......
    No bunny trails here. Try looking at all the gymnastics involved in explaining why, every MV needs to be consulted, in a search for God’s Word.
     

Share This Page

Loading...