I don't think the bible itself claims to be a universal authority. Universal authority was given the bible during the period of the reformation and this was done, it seems to challenge the Catholic church. The Catholic Church itself did not take its authorty from the "bible" but from some form of apostolic succession I believe and from the backing of Rome. To say that the Catholic church have endeavoured to hide the "bible" from the masses is simply a powerful "protestant" device to challenge Catholic political and doctrinal authority. We too can use this device to challenge authority and doctrine (the WTS').
Think about it.
An architect designs a specific structure with measurements, dimensions, load bearing tolerences, materials and height.
The blueprints are given to the builder.
What does an inch really mean without a STANDARD? What does any measurement, dimension, or specificity mean without a STANDARD?
Can you let the width of each workman's thumb equal the inch????
Would you trust a ten story building where each guy on the scaffold used his own foot or the length of his reach from nose to finger tip as a yard??? Would the building even stand?
This is the problem with Christianity. A rigid structure has been built. Who designed the structure? It has been a chaos from beginning until now!!
Does not history make it obvious that Christianity is just people using their own thumb and shoe size to erect a denomination??
Without an original STANDARD with which to compare each individual's concept of an "inch" or "foot" you have opinion instead of archtecture.
Why is this obvious to me now and I missed it for so many years, I wonder???
ASK YOURSELF this question and see what your answer is....
It is very suspicious. Why waste the time hunting for original relics, when the original Bible is the most important of these? Could it be that they were the first to tamper with the Bible, making Jesus' teachings say something other than what they really did?
Not that the witlesses are any better--if anything, they are even worse.
I can see how it might strike someone who strongly believes, or was actually raised in the Sola scriptura perspective of Protestantism as odd. This would certainly include JW's
--Not terribly odd from a Catholic perspective.
Yes, I picked up a book by a Catholic priest in plain language explaining various things about the Bible.
According to the father the original scriptures were practical everyday writings passed around so much they simply wore out!
When they got too ragged to use anymore they were destroyed so that people wouldn't worship them.
Nothing special, nothing to get excited about. You've got the church, so, why get yourself bent out of shape. :)
This is kind of a weird question. You are asking why didn't the Catholic Church (people from the 4th century) preserve the original Bible which was written in the 1st century. The simple and most obvious answer is that it was lost/destroyed before any Catholics were born so they couldn't preserve it. All the idolatry you described as being practiced by Catholics was not practiced by real Christians in the first century.
You are asking why didn't the Catholic Church (people from the 4th century) preserve the original Bible which was written in the 1st century.
That's not the question.
The question is this:
Given that there are literally centuries between the time of the writing of the very first documents that are now considered "Biblical", how do we know that what we call "the Bible" is accurate?
How can you know that what is in the oldest survivng complete* manuscripts, from the 4th, 5th, 6th, centuries, is a true undistorted copy of what was written in the 1st century?
How do you know that there weren't massively huge errors in copying between centuries 1 and 4, especially since copying errors abound in the manuscripts we do have from the 4th century onward?
* Certain scraps of fragments of documents dated to the 2nd century do exist.
The bible is not the original manuscripts, not from the OT or than NT.
I think if one views the bible as infalliable and error proof then perhaps this is a MAJOR issue, for those, like me, who don't, I don't think itis that much of an issue at all.
When the dead sea scrolls were found, the stuff written there was almost eactly the same as what was in the current bible, with the minor differences not being worthy of doctrinal change.
While we don't have any evidence like that in regards to the NT works, not yet anyways, we also have the various "opposing view points" too, from the same periods ( more or less) in question of the documents of the NT.
Why are first run edition of classic books so expensive? Because the first run doesn't assume a runaway success and will have a limited distribution. It think the originals aren't around because they were never written to be mass produced and saved. The legend of Jesus the Nazarene likely started as a verbal tradition that gained popularity and eventually was compiled into several "best of" collections.
If I recall correctly, the oldest public manuscript of Jesus life is actually omitted from the Bible. I'm sure the Vatican has many old documents. If they had proof, I'm sure it would be waved on a banner to increase converts and legitimize their faith as the only true one. The fact that they instead rely on sightings of the Virgin Mary on burnt toast leads me to believe that any old documents they have, at best aren't in the bible cannon, at worse paint a very different picture of Christianity.
Hi Terry hope you've been well. I find this very interesting. I started a book club we voted on books to read, I have a list of them but the
first one is "The God Delusion" I've been skimming the book before the start date. I have so many questions about the old testament. Things that I
sure never remember even reading. I have questions about the Bible in itself. And yes you think things would have been preserved if it was truth why
would it not. But the things I am reading well what is the truth.