[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

MPaul, sometimes you write a bit cryptically and strangely, so let's give a go.

Originally Posted by M Paul

Protestants establish the canon by scriptural principles.

The canon being the books of the Bible (possibly also the chapters and sections, such as the resurrection accounts of Jesus given by Mark). Presumably you are referring to apostolic authorship, consistency, sense of inspiration, acceptance by the body of believers, early authorship and recognition.

Originally Posted by M Paul

According to those principles, no translation is canon (meaning in the context of this post -- the precise equivalent of the Word of God).

However that is not the definition of the canon at all. The definition of the canon says nothing at all about what languages texts are originally written in (sometimes unknown or conjectural) nor what languages a text is being read in today.

Originally Posted by M Paul

(Of course quotes of a translation within Scripture are canon, but only as much as is quoted, not the entire translated work. The Catholics use NT quotations of the Septuagint as proof this entire ancient Greek translation is canon

That is not exactly accurate either, and it is far afield. Plus the theory of NT quotations of the Greek OT is basically fallacious, as the later Greek OT was smoothed to be closer to the NT (see Psalm 14 and Romans 3 as the textbook example). Plus the RCC does not use the Greek Septuagint (you are actually trying to discuss the Apocrypha) they have used the 400 AD Latin translation from the Hebrew-Aramaic by Jerome, which is quite close to the Hebrew-Aramaic Masoretic Text. While they now accept the Hebrew as an alternate translation base to the Latin Vulgate. The fundamental Greek OT has never been an RCC staple, even while taking in books as deutero-canonical (or whatever terms they have used) in whatever languages those books are available, which varies over Greek, Latin and Hebrew.

Originally Posted by M Paul

-- but Protestants reject this quotation principle for establishing canonicity, as it is not established within Scripture). But you do not address the main issue by Protestants on rejecting a translation as canon because it does not meet Scriptural criterion.

There is no need to address a 'principle' that does not historically exist and has been expressed or defended in a consistent manner. The historic Reformation view never considered translations as anything less than 100% canon-accurate.

Originally Posted by M Paul

Where in Scripture are principles established for upholding a translation as the Word of God.

Many places. e.g. Timothy read the Scriptures and there is no indication that this was dependent on his reading original languages or dialects.

Originally Posted by M Paul

Or are you using the Catholic argument?

Since you do not even know the Catholic position on the Greek OT, which you used as your argumentation base, I think we can pass by this section.

Originally Posted by M Paul

.... Or are you saying we must reject the principle of Sola Scriptura in establishing what is Scripture?

Yet another confusion in your writing. There is nothing in the principle of Sola Scriptura that is language-dependent. Same situation as with canon.

Shalom,
Steven