Replies

It seems logical to me that an eye witness of an account or the passing of oral tradition is most authentic the closer it is to the actual happening. So it seems reasonable that the early fathers of the church had a better understanding of the language, context, and traditions of the time so as to be able to translate the text more accurately than we can now. To borrow the "telephone" analogy again,the closer to the original message the better.

You do not think there is a "perfect" translation, yet we know that Scripture is TRUTH and inerrant. The Holy Ghost has promised us the accuracy of Holy Scripture but hasn't promised us that it would never be corrupted by man, right? So it stands to reason that if we have been given God's inerrant word that we would be given some authority to look to for it's translation. God in His infinite wisdom certainly knew we would not everywhere and always be able to speak, read, or understand Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. There will be illiterate and simple people who need the faith also, for I'm sure you believe as I do that God's Church is for all times and all people. Catholics look to an authority not out of weakness or distrust of the Holy Ghost, but because we know that God has always set forth His Church to guide us in these matters.

Now if you reject this "needing a definitive authority" explanation, how do we as Christians decide which Bible to read and use as a rule of Faith? I'm sure I don't have to tell you there are hundreds of versions of the Bible and they are all different, some don't even have all the canons included. It is only logical to deduce that they cannot all be correct and so how do we determine which one is God's Word inerrant?

I look forward to your reply.

In Christ,
Rita

It seems logical to me that an eye witness of an account or the passing of oral tradition is most authentic the closer it is to the actual happening.

You make an important point here, and one which I look forward to addressing...

But, it is late (after midnight here in the East), so for now I will return you to my #106, which returns us to the original Genesis 3:15 argument.

I hope you'll have time to read and address my #106; if so (or even if not), I'll try to attend to your #76 this weekend.

Best, OP