View Single Post
Old 08-25-2007, 03:25 PM   #4
MattyMattyChooChoo's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Shreveport
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 0 MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice MattyMattyChooChoo is just really nice

You trivialize the origin of the Bible. The Catholic Church didn't just assemble the documents and send it on its way. Biblical scholars and theologians worked, and continue to work, for 2000 years to find, not just the interpretation of each individual word, but the meaning of the message as a whole.

You are correct that the King James Bible is derived from the ancient scripts. However, when the Bible was translated by Roman Catholics long before the Protestant Reformation, there was no disunity in the Church. The King James version was commissioned to continue the disunity and thus was translated reflecting the non-Catholic beliefs (sola scriptura).

King James was the head of the Church of England, which was created by Henry VIII (self declared head of the Church of England) for the sake of getting divorced. How was the Church instituted? For what reason? These things matter. The Church of England was instituted by a king who wanted Church-sanctioned sin. Those who stood up to him were executed (St. Thomas More). King James continued in the tradition of Henry VIII by supporting the right to head of the Church of England.

Define divinely inspired. Your two sentences are confusing.
"I am that I am dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes. The entire Bible is 'divinely inspired'".
The phrase "dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes" and "divinely inspired" seem to contradict. The first seeming to infer that God "possessed" (for lack of a better word) the scribes and took over their hands to put it down on paper. The second phrase infers that the Bible is "inspired" by God.
Something to remember is that the Bible was not jotted down be every person involved. Adam and Eve did not keep journals. The Bible was passed on verbally for generations, until it was finally recorded on paper (scrolls, whathaveyou). Did the verbal tradition whittle away every single detail of the story? Undeniably. It is part of our nature. When finally transcribed, was the story exactly the same as the actual event. Doubtful. If God told the scribes exactly what to write leaving no interpretation of the story to the writers, and human nature had changed the verbal tradition, the written version and the verbal versions would be vastly different. So which one is true?
MattyMattyChooChoo is offline   Reply With Quote