how was Martin Luther able to get the bible from God?

Question

someone answered that Martin Luther got his bible from God in one of my questions concerning where did Martin Luther got his Bible from. how's that possible? how did Martin Luther exactly got it straight from God?

i know this question might sound silly, but i just have to ask because that answer really sounded so silly to me as well. it's so surprising that someone will actually answer like that. lol!

Answer 1

A) Whoever said that has more than a little bit of ignorance.

B) Martin Luther merely translated the Latin Vulgate into German. In the doing he also decided to leave out 7 books from the Old Testament and parts of 2 others. He decided he knew better than those who put the books together in the first place.

C) He would have loved to omit the Epistle of James to the Hebrews too because it flatly contradicts some of his tenets, but didn't quite dare.

D) His original motive was to give the word of God to everyone, but he unfortunately forgot that you had to be functionally literate in SOME language in order to be able to read anything! He shoulda cajoled those German princelings into starting schools for the peasants. THEN translated books for them!

Answer 2

Martin Luther did not get the Bible straight from God . . . at least not like Moses went up on the mountain and the 'hand of God' wrote the Ten Commandments in stone. Not like some of the prophets were told, 'write!'

But Martin Luther did inspect the texts and translate them into a [the] common language, therefore destroying the monopoly the Priests had on the 'understanding' - allowing the scriptures to be inspected by common people . . . just like they were, in the days they were written [as letters to one another]

One could say that was an act of God - from God . . .

Answer 3

I think what the person meant was that since the Bible was written by God, and the apostles, the Bible is a gift to humanity from God, so therefore God gave the Bible to Martin Luther. I hope this helps answer your question. :) have a GREAT day!

Answer 4

Martin Luther already had a bible; he was a Catholic preist and then realized the truth of God was not hiding from everyone to keep the pope's power in check. His bible was from the Pope. At this time, common citezins were not allowed to own a copy of the bible, which was only written in Latin, a language not many understood. Luther and his wife (he married after leaving Catholism) made many, many new readable copies of the Bible for everyone to learn about God's TRUE word.

And thus, the beginning of Protestantism.

Answer 5

Does not the content and the literary form of the Bible prove its inspiration ? Does not the Bible contain miracles and prophecies, holy and sublime doctrines, and appeal to the heart of man by its peculiar beauty and simplicity ?

No, the book itself does not guarantee its own inspiration. Such a criterion is useless, because at most it would prove that some parts of some books are inspired, but not that any book is divine in its origin. The writings of many of the Fathers and saints of the Church contain topics just as sublime, and written in just as sublime and simple a style. And yet no one ever considered St. Augustine, St. Bernard or Thomas a Kempis inspired. Some books like Numbers are in many portions as interesting as the multiplication table, while others like Esther do not mention any religious topic whatsoever. Literary taste, moreover, is variable and subjective, and, therefore, useless as a test of inspiration.

Can we not prove the inspiration of the Bible from "the inward testimony of the Spirit?" Does not the Bible produce in the reader sentiments of devotion, faith, hope, and love of God and one's neighbor?

No, this criterion is no criterion whatever, as Dr. Eck told Luther at the Leipzig Disputation, when he argued that the inspired and canonical character of the books of the Bible could be known only by the divine authority and tradition of the Catholic Church. He quoted St. Augustine against him: "I am compelled to believe the Gospel only on the authority of the Catholic Church" {Contra Epis. Fund. Manich., ch. 5).

Such a criterion is purely subjective. The impression received from reading the Bible varies with each individual reader, and as happened in Luther's case, may give rise to arbitrary denials of whole books of the Bible. For example, he eliminated the Second Book of Machabees because he rejected the doctrine of purgatory; he considered the Apocalypse "neither apostolic nor prophetic"; he called the Epistle of St. James an "Epistle of straw," and declared the Apostle was "mad with his crazy doctrine of good works" (Grisar, Luther, v., 521, 522).

Moreover, there are many portions of the Bible which do not arouse devotion, and many non-inspired books that do. On this false test we would have to reject the inspiration of Exodus xxxv., Leviticus xi., or 2 Kings xi. and maintain the inspiration of the Interior Castle of St. Teresa and the Dark Night of the Soul of St. John of the Cross.

Answer 6

and you believed that?
The Bible is the inspired work of God. Those who wrote it wrote what God inspired them to write.
It is factual and true down to the last period on the last page.
it is, indeed, the Word of God.
The Bible came into existence hundreds of
years before Martin Luther was even born.
Martin Luther did not get it directly from God.

Answer 7

maybe that person thinks the Bible fell from heaven and Martin Luther happened to catch it.

Answer 8

I am afraid I don't clearly understand your question. I think maybe I don't know enough about Martin Luther...Sorry

Answer 9

Ah, yet you're assuming that the possession declare of the Catholic church become valid. it isn't stealing to recuperate stolen resources through taking it from the guy/those who stole it. i'm no longer retaining it particularly is the case right here, yet when the Catholic church appropriated the unique writings that comprised the bible and then refused to allow any non-Catholic entity get appropriate of entry to to those archives, it doesn't be seen stealing for someone to take those archives and go back them to the unique vendors nor would it not is stealing to confiscate any of the products derived from those archives to apply for the needs of dispensing the benefits of those products to the rightful heirs to the unique archives.

Answer 10

If you really want to know, I reccomend seeing the movie "Luther" with Joseph Fiennes. It's not only a really well done movie, but it's also very factual. I don't think there is one ounce of fiction.