The real issue is that Protestantism relies on a set of books as infallible but doesn't know where it came from.
Christianity predates the Bible. The Bible was compiled for the faithul by the Church. Jesus didn't leave a list and didn't say what to put into the Canon, and so He delegated that task to His Church. Protestants unknowingly put trust in the council fathers who decided and promulgated the Canon, except then rejecting seven entries, more than a full millennium later. After that confusion, the Church then ratified the original Canon.
The scriptures themselves say the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not vice versa. KJV onlyism is a subset of Sola Scriptura, which is itself untenable.
Additionally, the original KJV includes the deuterocanon (the books rejected by most protestants today), and was illegal to print without it until much later. As an added bonus, there is a conspicuous omission of references to tyrants in it, almost assuredly at the request of that English king.
Replies (8)
Epistemic arguments are a cheap way to avoid having actual knowledge.
But how do you *know* that? 🤣
Attacking a means of argumentation is a cheap way of avoiding actually considering the argument.
My point stands that KJVOnlyism is a subset of Sola Scriptura, which is itself untenable, as I have shown.
Modern scriptural scholarship, regardless of specific faith affiliation, is infiltrated by unfaithful scholars. This is why it is important to be familiar with older scholarship when studying.
The Latin never changes, and if I'm not mistaken that full translation predates the Canon. That is the translation of texts that were decided, promulgated, and ratified. Original manuscripts of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew are not always available, so when they aren't we always have the Latin.
It is also important to point out that "biblical study" is not Christianity. Having better and more faithful translations is good but not the point of the Faith. Study can enhance one's faith, but it ought not be the faith to study (see 1 Cor 13). The point of the Faith is to become Christ-like, or little Christs as "Christian" suggests. We follow His lead, taking up our cross, etc. We follow His commands: love God, love neighbor, baptize all the nations, etc. We receive His offering of His Body and Blood. This is Christianity. This is The Way.
Well stated
Adding you to my list 🇻🇦🫡
Besides that, the Codex Vaticanus has a longer provable provenance than any other manuscript of the Scriptures.
The authorship of books of the Bible is rarely part of the book of the Bible either. Usually those are the “traditional authors” but not mentioned in the actual text.
Several of the criticisms leveled here don’t make sense to me.
This is the other note that is a powerful confirmation, but I imagine not as convincing to Protestants. Just because one translation is super old and has been used and unchanged for millennia doesn't exactly mean that it is the most reliable, most authentic, authoritative, etc. However, as a Catholic, I take great comfort in those facts, because my trust in the Church is yet more confirmed.
In the Hypothetical-Durkheimian sense, there’s no religion that isn’t a cosmology at the same time speculation on the Divine providence!
Religion is inspired by the simultaneity of determination & indeterminacy by the need for contingency!
We don't have to respect religions as we have to respect people. Asking that the two be equivalent is a filthy manipulation to go back to the 19th century & crime of blasphemy...
Where did this comment come from?
> We don't have to respect religions as we have to respect people.
Why must we respect people, and why does that not include their religion?
