Recalling old controversies
Remember the alarm in the 60's and 70's that any change in how we understand or interpret the Bible would cause acceptance of its authority to collapse and corrupt believers? And did you see this rise again 4 years ago when the publisher of the New International Version had the audacity to change the language to reflect more inclusivity and be less masculine? Well, the charge isn't new. Consider this remark:
“if one point in the [ ] were in error the entire authority of Holy Scripture would collapse, love and faith would be extinguished, heresies and schisms would abound, blasphemy would be committed against the Holy Spirit, the authority of theologians would be shaken, and indeed the church would be shaken from the foundations.”
About changing some critical doctrine in the Scriptures? About questioning the interpretation of the church? No. This charge was made against Erasmus' plan to translate the New Testament of the Vulgate, the accepted Latin version of the day, into Greek, going back to original sources whenever possible. This was in 1516. Not only do “things not change,” even the arguments don't.
You will notice that I am currently reading a biography of Erasmus, contemporary of Martin Luther, Thomas More and Henry VIII.
