Tradition!

[yrieithydd]

Someone on the Ship of Fools Discussion boards posted a link to a site which tells us that Catholics aren't Christians. One of the pages is about Tradition is bad because it is not in the Bible. However, I was amused by the following as it shows lack of Greek!

1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Where does it say, "Listen to Catholic Tradition?" Relevance please? Where does it say this was passed down by oral tradition?

When one consults the greek of this chapter, one sees that the verb translated delivered in the version used (I suspect KJV) is παρεδωκα which the cunning morphological analysis tool at perseus tells me means give or hand over to another, transmit. Now one of the Greek words for tradition is παραδoσις. The trouble is that English doesn't have a verb which goes with tradition. Welsh has traddodi which is what one does with traddodiad. So it is precisely saying that Paul received the tradition orally!

Comments

[curig.livejournal.com]

Also, they seem inexplicably to neglect Matthew 16:18 in their discussion of the question of St Peter as the foundation of the Church.

[curig.livejournal.com]

Also "There are also many other doctrines of the catholic religion which could have been refuted (e.g. the sacraments, receiving the Holy Ghost, salvation through the catholic religion, penance, rosary, etc.)."

Receiving the Holy Ghost? Nasty, unchristian thing to do...

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

Very!

I missed that one!

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

Also, they seem inexplicably to neglect Matthew 16:18 in their discussion of the question of St Peter as the foundation of the Church.

I noticed that. And I think similar omissions.

Did you see the bit about the sin of presumption? I'm intrigued by that one. I'm confused due to being Wesleyan enough to acknowledge assurance, but Catholic enough to see the presumption. I think it comes down to what one means by 'being saved' and whether it is once for all ...

[curig.livejournal.com]

I think one has to remember that assurance is a gift and is not part and parcel of salvation. If God gives us the gift of assurance then we need to give thanks for that and accept it humbly. Once you start thinking that you are in the unchangeable state of "saved" then I think you have moved away from assurance and in to presumption.

An analogy I have used before for this is Christmas presents. From people to whom we are close, probably we know that we are going to get them. However, that doesn't mean we're excused from being thankful when we do get them, and taking such things for granted is generally undesirable and presumptuous of the generosity of the giver.

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

That makes sense.

Salvation is always more about what God has done for us (into which we are incorporated through baptism) than about us. We can also never rest on our laurels and think that we're ok. We are to grow in holiness.

Also, often with a lot of people who talk about the fact they're going to heaven when they die, love appears to have gone out of the window ... .

[curig.livejournal.com]

Also, your comments about Greek just show how little trust you have in God's Holy Word (AV 1611). See here.

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

[grins]

I love logic. Partway through he says:

I do not buy the line that the inerrant word of God is found only in the originals-- which nobody has. I know that God has the power to preserve His word and that he wouldn't leave us out in the dark with an "imperfect" translation. In the authorized King James Version God assembled, and moved with His Spirit, a team of some of the world's best scholars to translate His word into the world's most popular language, English.

But earlier he had said:

The Authorized King James text has faithfully served the body of Christ for almost 400 years.

Ok, so God won't leave us out in the dark, but the authorised version has only been around for 400 years. What happened in the first 1600? Were we in the dark?

I also love the world's most popular language, English. This might in some senses be true today; whilst it is not the most spoken language in terms of overall number of speakers, it is second language to more people. However, I am not at all sure that it was true in 1611. Back then, Latin was still the language of scholarship and I think French and German have both had pretty high academic status in the intervening years.

I will agree with him over the the problem of saying it was inerrant in the originals -- which no-one has. But to me that is an argument against getting hung up on the whole inerrancy thing anyway!

This bit from the inerrancy page is great too!
I will NEVER go to school to translate the Bible. I've got the best teacher in the universe and beyond--His name is the Holy Ghost. I've also got the word of God--the Authorized King James Bible. I have NEVER once gotten increased understanding from a preacher's "explanation of the Greek". The forceful, unabated, irreverent attack on the Authorized King James Bible that has served Christendom for almost 400 years is the result of liberalism gone amuck.

Where does he think those who translated the AV learnt to do it? Or did the Holy Ghost dictate it to them? Also, where did he learn to read? Or is that stage of learning ok?

[curig.livejournal.com]

I know that God has the power to preserve His word

If that's the case, why are all these new translations so dodgy then?