Incongruous.

There are many who proclaim “sola scriptura” (scripture alone), but also insist that “one specific” translation of the Bible is a prerequisite to one’s faith and spiritual well-being or God’s only authorized version. How can anyone possibly suggest a specific translation is alone “God ordained” while holding to “scripture alone”? In order to make the argument of God’s choice of translation being made manifest to man, post biblical revelation is the only option due to the fact that the bible (regardless of translation) says nothing of the sort. The only argument that can be made is entirely outside of “scripture”. Hence the staunchly held belief is not based on scripture alone, but opinion. Translation “onlyists” need to take a little stroll down the textual and manuscript history path. Like Bart Ehrman states: "Is the inspired Bible the one that we actually use? The King James Version? Some people continue to insist so, even if it does seem to be a rather silly view: do you mean that for all those centuries before the King James translators got to work, Christians did not have access to God’s inspired word? What was God thinking? Some other modern translation then? The Hebrew and Greek texts from which these English translations are made? If one chooses the last option, what does one do about the fact that we don’t have the original Hebrew and Greek texts of any of the books of the Bible, but only later copies of these texts, all of which have mistakes?"1 There are those who seem ignorant of the fact that a books validity cannot be argued by quoting from that same book. That would be like me quoting myself to prove as to why I am right. 

1. Ehrman, Bart, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them). 2009 Harper Collins, pg. 182

No comments: