Bibliolatry - the hidden idolatry.

[stranger]

1 Peter 4:17 (NASB)
©1995 by The Lockman Foundation

17For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

From: Online Literature Biblioatry
Christ Bible Church http://www.christbiblechurch.org


Saphir was a Jew / Presbyterian Minister (1831-1891) Being a Jew he had the inside edge about matters Jewish, being a Protestant he saw striking parallels . . .

Part 1/2
Bibliolatry
By Adolph Saphir, D.D.

The charge of Bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) has been of late frequently preferred against those who maintain the supremacy of Scripture. As far as this objection is urged by those who do not fully and clearly acknowledge the Divine authority and inspiration of Scripture, it is easily refuted. But as far as we ourselves are concerned, we may do well to consider whether our opponents are not giving utterance to a truth which they themselves do not fully see, and warn us against a danger the existence of which we are apt to overlook. In other words, never mind whence and for what purpose the charge of Bibliolatry is made, --consider the thing itself; is there such a tendency, such an evil, such a danger? I know that many Christians will reply at once, "We cannot value, and reverence, and cherish the Bible sufficiently." And this is quite true. The danger is not of a reverence too deep, but of a reverence untrue and unreal. We cannot speak, think, and feel too highly of Scripture in its vital connection with Christ and the Spirit; but there may be a way of viewing Scripture by itself apart from Christ and the Holy Ghost, and transferring to this dead book our faith, reverence, and affection; and this surely would come under the category of idolatry, -substituting something, however good and great in itself, or rather in its relation to God, in the place of the living God. Gross idolatry is not the danger of the Church. Since the Reformation, idolatry must needs appear in a very subtle form.

On such an important subject it is a duty to be explicit, although one is liable to be misunderstood. Notice, that all points which are of special importance at the present time are always those on which one is most easily misunderstood; the truth which is clearly seen and universally accepted, is not that truth which is specially needed to be pointed out at ' the time. By Bibliolatry I understand the tendency of separating, in the first place, the Book from the Person of Jesus Christ, and in the second, from the Holy Ghost, and of thus substituting the Book for Him who alone is the light and guide of the Church. In explanation of this twofold tendency, I submit the following considerations: --

The Jews regarded Scripture as the Word of God. They reverenced its very letter, guarding it with scrupulous care and studying it with indefatigable diligence. They were zealous defenders of "the oracles of God" entrusted to them, and boasted of the wonderful treasure in their possession. How then was it, that with such a reverence and knowledge of Scripture, they could not understand the Living Word, Jesus Christ? The Lord explained the fact. While they thought that in the Scriptures they had eternal life, they had not the Word of God abiding in them. Was there not Bibliolatry in their case?

But not merely did they not understand and receive Christ's word, though it was so fully in accordance with the Scripture, but-- they did not perceive the resemblance between Jesus and that picture of the Messiah which Moses and the prophets had delineated. and which was so wonderfully and strikingly manifested before them in glorious fulfillment. They were continually reading that Scripture in which the features of the Messiah, the chosen servant of God, were clearly and fully described; and when the Man stood before them who was the Original of the portrait, they did not know Him; they recognized not who He was; nay, they ended in condemning Him to death “according to their laws†(that is, on Scripture grounds).

How is it, that with all their reading of Scripture, they did not recognize Him of whom all prophets testified? They did not fall down before Jesus in adoration and worship. Then what did they worship? The letter of Scripture they reverenced; the sum and substance, the reality of Scripture, Jesus Christ, they did not even recognize. Here we have a total misunderstanding of Scripture, combined with an orthodox belief in its authority, and great and zealous defense and praise of the inspired Record. How striking and lamentable is this fact! The Jews believing the Bible and rejecting Jesus; glorying in the written Word, and casting Jesus out of the beloved city; holding the Bible in one hand, and Crucifying Jesus with the other; nay, accusing Him of blasphemy.

Whether there is anything corresponding to this among us, I leave the reader to judge. Whether to many the Bible is as it was to the Jews, not the voice of the living God, but instead of that voice, so that while they believe it contains truth, they do not believe the truth it contains: whether with the professed reverence for the Bible, there is much real reverence for the word which comes from God, and treatment of it as such, is an inquiry which I simply indicate and suggest.

How can we account for such a nation, Scripture loving and Jesus-hating; reverencing the letter of Scripture, but not able to recognize the voice of Him who had spoken at sundry times and in divers manners to the fathers, and was now speaking to them by his Son, the Lord Jesus? It is "Bibliolatry" which explains it. They substituted "Bible" for God speaking in and through this book. They thought that instead of a living God guiding them and influencing them, they had now a Book which contained all, and e great thing was to explain it correctly. They asked (as our people ask) "What was the text?" and not "What is the Word, the message of God?" It is evident from the Psalms and the prophets that the books of Moses were diligently read, and yet the constant call to Israel was, "Return to Jehovah. " The difference between the true Israelite and the Bibliolater was, --the one looked upon Scripture as leading him to God, as a channel through which God taught, influenced, and comforted him: the other looked upon Scripture as a substitute for God; in other words, it became to him a way of getting rid of God. The spirit of the God-estranged text-worshippers is expressed in the saying of a Rabbi, that now that God has given the Law. He has no more need and right to interfere by further revelations. Under the pretence of honoring the Bible, they virtually treated God as one who had ceased to live and rule among them.

And now the rule of man began. For if instead of God we have the Bible, the task of commentators, interpreters, casuists, commences. For the text is obscure, the commentary distinct; the text is severe, the casuist accommodating; the text is deep and manysided, the interpreter shallow and one-sided; the text desires inward truth and radical cure, the tradition heals the hurt of the daughter of my people superficially and falsely. In course of time the tradition came to be regarded as more valuable, more necessary, more practical, than the Bible. Naturally so. Without a living God, viewing the Bible as God's substitute, a clear and detailed interpretation of the code is in reality of greater importance than the code itself.

This fact, Israel reverencing the Bible and crucifying Christ, is patent and striking to all. But it may not have been sufficiently considered, that it is a fact for all ages. and that the principles involved in it have a special importance for the Church. But while this form of Bibliolatry is chiefly among those who have not accepted the message of God (though they accept "the Bible"), and who are often encouraged in their state by not having this dead acceptance of the Bible pointed Out to them, there is another form of Bibliolatry which is more dangerous to the children of God. Such phrases as "The Bible is the religion of Protestants," well-meant, and true to a certain extent, already indicate an incipient decay. Where there is life ` and life in health. such expressions do not exist. Paul never would have said that the Scripture was the religion of the Christian. Christ was his Light and Life. If asked further about Christ, he would describe Him as the Scripture testifies of Him, and as the Spirit revealed Jesus to his soul. It is not that Paul thought otherwise than we do about the Divine authority, sufficiency, and fulness of Scripture, but he stood to Scripture in a true relation.

continued below. . .

--Adolph Saphir, D.D.

 

[stranger]

Part 2/2
Bibliolatry
By Adolph Saphir, D.D.

continued. . .

The Reformation-churches soon departed from the true and living view of Scripture. Luther saw Scripture in its relation to Christ and to the Spirit; indeed, many of his savings err on the side of subjecting the Scripture too much to the testimony of the Spirit' to our spirit. They are unguarded, but in reality only strong and one-sided expressions of what he felt so deeply,--that we do not place the Bible as Christ's substitute or the substitute of the Holy Ghost; that the great value of the Bible is that it testifies of Christ; and that the Holy Ghost is the true enlightener and teacher. While Luther did not sufficiently guard his assertions (forgetting, too, that the testimony of Scripture concerning Christ was much more ample and full than his idea as to what that testimony ought to be), his followers too soon forgot the true position of the Scripture. The Holy Ghost is above Scripture. Not that there is anything in the Scripture which is not in accordance with the Spirit's teaching, for all Scripture is inspired of God, but the Church is in danger of ignoring the existence of the Holy Ghost and her constant dependence on Him, and of substituting for the Spirit the Book. And now commences the reign of interpreters and commentaries, of compendiums and catechisms; for if we have the Spirit's teaching in the Book instead of the Spirit's teaching by the Book, men wish to have it extracted, simplified, reduced to a system, methodised. And then, practically speaking, the creed is above the Bible.

Thus there has been, to a great extent, "textâ€Â-preaching instead of "Word of God" preaching. The Word was "outside" of us, instead of "dwelling" in us. And our testimony is different in tone and power from that of the apostles and primitive Christians; for their testimony was in the Spirit and of Christ according to Scripture, while ours has become testimony concerning the Bible in reference to Christ and the Holy Ghost. The apostles spoke of Christ, and confirmed and illustrated their testimony by the prophecies of Scripture. They looked to the Man in the first place, and secondarily to the portrait given of Him in the Book. Whereas the pseudo-apostolic preaching fixes its own eye and that of the hearer in the first place on the Book, and deduces from it the existence and influence of the Person. The impression in the one case is: that the preacher announces a message from Christ, who is a reality to him; and this his experience of Christ, he asserts, is according to Scripture. The impression in the other case is: that Isaiah, Paul, John teach, according to the preacher's exposition, such and such doctrine. The one is preaching Christ; the other, about Christ. The one is life and spirit; the other is possible without the spirit and vitality. The one is testimony; the other is an exposition of another man's inspired testimony. The one is preaching the Word (with or without text); the other is text-preaching without the Word. Paul preached Christ; our tendency is to preach that Paul preached Christ.

Why is it that God, in speaking to his own people. says so often, "I am the Lord"? Why does He speak so frequently and so earnestly against idolatry? Why does He teach us continually that the Spirit quickeneth; that the letter, even the good and inspired letter, killeth? Because the root-tendency of man is to substitute shadow for substance, the form and outline for the fullness, rules for life, and dead things for the living God. Because we like to stand on terra firma, and resemble children, who cannot understand on what pillars earth, sun, and moon do rest. Because we think of catching a sunbeam in a trap, instead of depending on the sun in the heavens, therefore we are always apt to deify "brazen serpents," "Bible doctrine," past experiences.

The man who first made a crucifix, doubtless simply meant it as an aid to his memory and devotion. The thought of the Saviour's love and death filled his heart with contrition, ardent affection, peace, and joy. "Oh, if I could always thus see a crucified Redeemer!" And why not? Is not the same mercy and love. which manifests Christ unto the soul now, continually with us? Will there be no manna to-morrow? Ah, but he wants to fix and secure the impression. He makes the crucifix; and now, instead of Christ, we have an expedient-an aid to devotion, which will soon become an obstacle, and then a substitute for the living Christ. For the process of deterioration is rapid; soon is Christ forgotten, and the crucifix becomes not a symbol, but an idol, and men think not merely of the crucifix, but attach importance to a special crucifix, with wood from such a place, and which has been used by such a saint, etc. But idolatry, in the large and spiritual sense, is not confined to "crucifixes." The Bible may be the Protestant crucifix.

And then it is that, as with the Jews, so now-a-days, people will say: "If you take away the Sabbath and the Bible, what remains?" And that is just what I ask: What does remain?" To a number of "religious people" so-called, what is left? Oh, when the Spirit of thy Lord came unto thee, and made thee see Jesus Christ, the Friend of sinners, and hear his blessed voice declaring peace in his blood, was thy consciousness that of a book or of a person, of a creed or of life, of written guarantees for God, or of that love which passeth knowledge and of that joy which is unspeakable? To us to live is Christ, and nothing else, and our safety is Christ and nothing else. And for this reason, the testimony, which nowhere but in Scripture we have perfect, full, and without error, is to us most precious.

The opinion of the world concerning us is, that we are guided by the Bible: and to defend ourselves and influence the world, we begin to show that we are right logically and historically, and ethically, in believing the Bible. But what we ought to have impressed upon the world is, that we are guided by the Holy Ghost, and that Christ is our center and our life.

The Bible is our storehouse, where we obtain nourishing food (even this illustration is dangerous, for apart from the Spirit there is no nourishing food, even in the Gospel of John and the very words of Christ). The Bible is our armoury, where there are swords and weapons for our conflict. But what we have to testify is, not that we have food, but that we have life, and that there is a Christ: not that we are equipped for war, but that we have strength, even the Holy Ghost.

And as for defending either the Bible or Christ, who ever asked us to do it? Certainly not Christ, for He told us to be his witnesses and not his advocates, and He has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. The defense is in his own hand, while He has left the testimony in ours. The whole testimony of the Church is Jesus Christ, and that testimony is by the Spirit of God; and those who are convinced and added to our number are so by the preaching, which is in demonstration of Spirit and power. But when the Church argues about and for Christ, and especially- about "the Bible," as if "the Bible" was God's guarantee instead of God's witness, she has insensibly got into a wrong Position. The apostles were witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus but how? Why did Jesus Himself not appear after his resurrection to the unbelieving Jews? The apostles preachedâ€â€not evidence proving the miraculous fact of the resurrectionâ€â€but a risen Saviour: resurrection power was theirs, and the Spirit convinced their hearers of that life in a risen Saviour. Our faith is not to stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. When the Word of the Lord comes to the soul, it brings its authority, power, and attraction with it, and the response of the heart is, not “What is this Book?†but, “Who art Thou, Lord?â€Â

Thus even the Bible may become dangerous. When we realize God, when we constantly remember that Christ Himself is All in All, and when we believe that according to the promise the Holy Ghost is the indwelling guide of the Church, then indeed the Bible is most precious to us, Word of the Most High, which we desire to receive with reverence, gratitude, and joy.
This, I believe, is what Edward Irving meant, when he said, “With shame I declare it, they talk more after the style of a Mohammedan talking about the Koran, or a Jew about the Talmud, than a spiritual Christian united to Christ speaking of the Word of Christ. For if I have Christ, I have more than His Word, I have Himself: He dwelleth in me, and I in Him.
"Hence cometh that please pray for me notion of faith, which I cannot away with, that it is merely the link which joineth the mind of man with the record of the Book. They go aboutâ€â€and men they are, many of them, most dear unto my soulâ€â€to speculate concerning Christianity, as they call it: how intellectual, how moral, how political it is, beyond all systems; how it is accommodated to tile faculties of the understanding, to the feelings of the heart, to the well-being of the community; it will heal the distemperature of the moral atmosphere of society, and do a thousand fine things; for the sake of which they would pray men to be so gracious as to give ear unto their God. And thus they seek by smooth and flattering words, and well-turned sentences, and well-built arguments, to produce that natural faith, which is no faith, but sight, intellectual, or moral or prudential discernment.

But I say unto you, ye cozeners of human nature, that faith is by pre-eminence the gift of God; and, wherever given, will fight against nature in all its courses; it will beat down the works of the natural man, and your beautiful nature it will conflagrate; your knowledge it will blow away into thin air, and sublime towards the limbo of vanity beyond the moon; your sentimentalists, your men of feeling, your songsters sweet, your novelists your moral scaffolders (for tone in its true place they never build a wall or lay a s' did nor will do), the whole tribe of your naturalists, rationalists, and neologians, with which the sunbeam swarms, and the very glittering element itself in which they flutter, this gospel, whose suitableness to improve them all you fondly prate and preach about, will first utterly destroy, as so many gewgaws, which Lucifer, the sun of the morning, hath made to mislead and destroy benighted men groping their way darkly on to death and destruction.

--Adolph Saphir, D.D.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Catholics worship Mary and the churches dogma. The Jews parade and esteem the Torah, they hold it in a very high respect, but anyone can see you cannot seperate Jews from the Book, or there ambition to return to Israel, or someday to build the Temple! The Protestants have an Old Rugged Cross - hardly a captivating site, and a Bible - hardly a sin. Catholics on the other hand have images galor, feasts, rites, ceremony liturgy, etc, not based on Jewish custom but pagan.

 

[stranger]

Catholics worship Mary and the churches dogma. The Jews parade and esteem the Torah, they hold it in a very high respect, but anyone can see you cannot seperate Jews from the Book, or there ambition to return to Israel, or someday to build the Temple! The Protestants have an Old Rugged Cross - hardly a captivating site, and a Bible - hardly a sin. Catholics on the other hand have images galor, feasts, rites, ceremony liturgy, etc, not based on Jewish custom but pagan.

Hi Doppleganger,

Yes, the Jews cannot be separated from the book as you say - at least not until the full number of the gentiles come in. One point Saphir (who was a Jew) did make was that this very devotion of the Jews to the book did not help them see their Messiah who stood in flesh and blood before them. How could the people of the book miss it? This is what Saphir explores and only a Messianic Jew could say it like he does. I can only talk about Jews that is totally different to being one.

 

[Veritas]

Sounds to me as if Saphir is critisizing the naturalists, rationalists, and neologians. That's exactly who he says he's refering to.

I won't name denominations, but I know of many out there that are starting to uphold the Bible as a great 'holy' book full of good stories to empower people. And that's it. If you asked a pastor at one of those churches if he or she actually believes that Moses existed, or Abraham, or Adam ...they hem and haw and beat around the bush. It's tragic, but I know of pastors that don't even believe Jesus is the way. I'm still amazed by that. Jesus is the whole point!

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

True, good point, that and the fact they wanted a national hero more than a saviour! Good posts too!

 

[destiny]

The devil would love to use his puppets to remove the bible from the earth, because It can't be changed, it is forever recorded and divinely inspired.
God is one with His word; the two can't be seperated.

 

[jgredline]

The devil would love to use his puppets to remove the bible from the earth, because It can't be changed, it is forever recorded and divinely inspired.
God is one with His word; the two can't be seperated.

This is one of the best posts I have read in a long time.....

This ''bibleidolotry'' that has been introduced by the Catholics as a rebuttal to Mary worship is also one of the most rediculas topics I have seen in this forum.....

 

[francisdesales]

This is one of the best posts I have read in a long time.....

This ''bibleidolotry'' that has been introduced by the Catholics as a rebuttal to Mary worship is also one of the most rediculas topics I have seen in this forum.....

You are easily impressed, because the Bible can be changed. Why do you think there are so many translations in English?

As to biblolatry being ridiculous, so is the accusation of Mariolatry.

Ridiculous.

However, a disinterested bystander in a Protestant worship service could easily come away with the idea that the Bible is worshipped rather than Jesus Christ. Everyone has a bible, but no one has pictures of Jesus or crucifixes. The Bible is the sole source of your faith - rather than Jesus. The pastor's interpretation of the bible is the center of the worship service, rather than the Eucharist, where we recognize the Lord in the breaking of the bread.

Hmm. I can see coming away with that idea that you worship the Bible. Of course, I know better, BUT, I can see a person thinking that...

Regards

 

[Veritas]

We know about the last supper and the importance of it for us from God's Word.

The Bible is the sole source of your faith - rather than Jesus.

How do you know Jesus?

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Well your the only one who thinks so Francis! I think this a sub-conscious thought of Catholics turned Protestant thinking back to the days when to receive the WORD OF GOD, and not just a bunch liturgical mumbo jumbo, actually meant something. Somewhere deep within there souls they have true peace knowing they can trust in God, his Word, and the message Christ delivered. Instead of a bunch of traditions, and dogma's that have no basis in reality! If we were that fantical, and so predisposed to worshipping something, which would more than likely be the imagine of a man, as ourselves, why wouldn't we put Christ above even God? Or at least on equal footing with Mary?

 

[Rick W]

The Jews regarded Scripture as the Word of God. They reverenced its very letter, guarding it with scrupulous care and studying it with indefatigable diligence. They were zealous defenders of "the oracles of God" entrusted to them, and boasted of the wonderful treasure in their possession. How then was it, that with such a reverence and knowledge of Scripture, they could not understand the Living Word, Jesus Christ? The Lord explained the fact. While they thought that in the Scriptures they had eternal life, they had not the Word of God abiding in them. Was there not Bibliolatry in their case?

I see this example as a pivotal point on which much of the remaining article rests... regard for scripture without following the intent of the message.
Let's assume for a bit that such was the case in the above example, not necessarily with all adherents but an instance that could very much have occurred with some.
So we have non-believers falsely "lifting up" scripture in message but with total zeal toward the written letter. Therein lies this most apparent example of bibliolatry. They copied, to the letter, the manuscripts with such focus as to be viewed as obsessive. Even if one letter was not correct the entire copy was discarded. Obsessive maybe, but accurate absolutely.
In this case the OP would also have been discarded: :

1 Peter 4:17 (NASB)
©1995 by The Lockman Foundation

17For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

From: Online Literature Biblioatry
Christ Bible Church http://www.christbiblechurch.org

Bibliolatry




Anyway, the point here is that God uses the non-believer as well as the believer. He used the non-believer to carry out a divine work, the crucifixion of Christ. Does that mean those non-believers were righteous? No, for God also punished the Assyrians who He used to chasten Israel. Yet, through the zeal of letter toward scripture the manuscripts were preserved, His Word made indestructible through the shear number of copies made. Copies yes, but very accurate ones none-the-less.

In more modern times bibliolatry may also produce "good fruits" while the practice thereof is less than perfect or even misses the mark.

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.
Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

 

[francisdesales]

Well your the only one who thinks so Francis!

What is the object of your statement? What are you refering to? I am the only one who thinks how?

And of course, you have polled everyone to KNOW that I am the only one who thinks whatever...

 

[destiny]

You are easily impressed, because the Bible can be changed. Why do you think there are so many translations in English?

As to biblolatry being ridiculous, so is the accusation of Mariolatry.

Ridiculous.

However, a disinterested bystander in a Protestant worship service could easily come away with the idea that the Bible is worshipped rather than Jesus Christ. Everyone has a bible, but no one has pictures of Jesus or crucifixes. The Bible is the sole source of your faith - rather than Jesus. The pastor's interpretation of the bible is the center of the worship service, rather than the Eucharist, where we recognize the Lord in the breaking of the bread.

Hmm. I can see coming away with that idea that you worship the Bible. Of course, I know better, BUT, I can see a person thinking that...

Regards

Is God big enough to preserve His words to all generations in spite of mans attempts to twist it and re-interpret it?

And ..isn't the bible an accurate 'picture' of who Jesus is?

 

[francisdesales]

Is God big enough to preserve His words to all generations in spight of mans attempts to twist it and re-interpret it?

And ..isn't the bible an accurate 'picture' of who Jesus is?

Is God big enough? We presume He is. My point was that in some of the specifics, it can be a bit confusing in determining the intent of the Word. If I was a Protestant, I'd be a bit concerned about all these translations, since they CAN give different meanings to the same verse. Thus, if I was "reinventing the wheel" through my own private interpretations, I might have problems in deciding WHAT God said in such and such verse.

Is the Bible an accurate picture of who Jesus is? We would presume it is, until we consider such things as the Da Vinci Code, or the claims of very liberal Protestants who think Jesus was married or Jesus thought homosexuality was OK or other such wacko ideas "based" on the Bible (so they claim).

Just as the Constitution, a written document, has a living interpreter, the Supreme Court, the Bible, a written document, has a living interpreter, the Church. What is great is that the Church has been called the pillar and foundation of the truth, guided by God's Spirit (eg Acts 15:28). This is a great advantage over the Supreme Court, since it is guided by man's current ideas and thoughts. The Church is not.

Regards

 

[jgredline]

Is God big enough? We presume He is.

And here lies the problem...While you ''presume'' he is, Many of us ''know'' he is.......

 

[Solo]

Is God big enough? We presume He is.

And here lies the problem...While you ''presume'' he is, Many of us ''know'' he is.......

HE is!

Didn't HE say, "I AM"? :

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Well the subject was Bible Idolatry wasn't it Francis? To have a Catholic use this term would seem to me to be an OXYMORON, wouldn't it?

Is God big enough? We presume He is. My point was that in some of the specifics, it can be a bit confusing in determining the intent of the Word.

Here again, Francis makes us presume in our opinions that we can't be justified, in having them! Its only hard for Catholics, who don't understand a book they don't read, or replace with church doctrine.

If I was a Protestant, I'd be a bit concerned about all these translations, since they CAN give different meanings to the same verse. Thus, if I was "reinventing the wheel" through my own private interpretations, I might have problems in deciding WHAT God said in such and such verse.

The Reformation was born outta the age of Enlightenment. The RC church, condemned people to death just not for "other" religious beliefs, but for recognizing the fact that the flat earth theory that grew outta roman paganism was totally and utterly false. They didn't re-invent the wheel, they re-discovered it. Protestants could actually read from the BOOK with there own eyes, in there own language. When you compare the KJV Bible (an English translation) you are gettting the most accurate Bible to date. Not perfect, but far better than any Catholic translation.

Is the Bible an accurate picture of who Jesus is? We would presume it is, until we consider such things as the Da Vinci Code, or the claims of very liberal Protestants who think Jesus was married or Jesus thought homosexuality was OK or other such wacko ideas "based" on the Bible (so they claim).

Here again he leads us down a primrose path, showing us how fallible our thoughts are. He's trying to associate all that he contrives us to be, to be exactly what it is, even though we can't possibly understand! Taking non-biblical contexts and making them biblical by his church standards so he can condemn us.

Just as the Constitution, a written document, has a living interpreter, the Supreme Court, the Bible, a written document, has a living interpreter, the Church. What is great is that the Church has been called the pillar and foundation of the truth, guided by God's Spirit (eg Acts 15:28). This is a great advantage over the Supreme Court, since it is guided by man's current ideas and thoughts. The Church is not.

Here he compares the Great Constitution of the U.S. to the College of Cardinals in Rome. What a Joke! All America wanted was freedom. All the RC church ever disposed off was obedience to her heretical ideas. Has this Church really been Guided? By the Spirit? From Acts? This great advantage is another ploy to throw doubt on facts. Comparing fallible Supreme Court Judges to Infallible Bishops. To make all things fallible and imperfect but the RC church!


Remember the characteristics of Jesuits. Remember that they are forceful. Remember that they do not regard opinions that differ from theirs, and that they cover up this attribute by always calling for differing opinions ultimately to force theirs in and to destroy all others. Remember that they are completely disrespectful of the scriptures, having faith in the authority of their church alone.

 

[Rick W]

Mormon Article of Faith #8

8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Note the condition set upon the bible but no such conditions imposed on the Book of Mormon.

But the first part is interesting...
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly"

Which seems to be the main argument thus far.

So the condition imposed is up for grabs to whatever interpretation one cares to place on scripture.
Translation is based upon manuscript text. Each translation comes from those manuscripts not translated from another translation. So I should be able to look at each and come up with a percentage of probability that the verse in question is interpreted properly. If I have ten translations and one doesn't match or align with the other nine then I can give a 90% probability that verse is translated properly in those other nine.

When we get to basic essentials the possibility that all ten would match becomes more apparent. As we look at other scripture of less import we may find some that don't. Such things as Christ is the Messiah in the NT would have a very high chance of being supported in all ten translations. The less important or vague the doctrine or idea the more likely something may be translated improperly.

I may find things I feel I can cite as mistranslated. That does not imply mistranslation concerning the Gospel that Jesus died, was buried and rose again which is the major thrust of Christ's message and His work on the cross.

Then of course there are those who don't like how the manuscripts read in the first place and translate verses in accordance with their imposed doctrines and not on the manuscripts. Jehovah Witnesses use a bible (New World Translation - NWT) in which things are either added, ignored or deleted to align with certain JW doctrine. An example is the inclusion of an "a" within John 1:1 to read "And the Word was a god." even though there's nothing in the manuscript to suggest that translation other than that's how they want it to read.

The point is one can certainly use more than one bible for cross references and comparison and make a solid decision concerning a verse in question. Going further one can also translate from the manuscript itself of which we do have a few here that can and have been known to do so.

And I've found the issue may not be so much the translation but how one wishes to understand it.

 

[jgredline]

Who is it that helps interpret scripture?
Who was it that showed Marting Luther Justification by faith in spite of all the false teaching that was rammed down his throat?

It was and still is the Holy Spirit.....