THE BIBLE - a closer look!

[norbie]

In some of our interesting Threads about the Family, there come up a very important issue to discuss, what you think about.
Shall we stick to the Bible as it is written - or does todays Culture change some of the teaching, especially Pauls??
It could be interesting and I think we should talk about it in Prayer for God's answer to us.
Norbie

[SirTimothy]

Shall we stick to the Bible as it is written - or does todays Culture change some of the teaching, especially Pauls??

I advise reading the book: "Biblical Interpretation" by W. Randolf Tate. Suffice to say it makes a compelling argument that there is no such concept as 'sticking to the Bible as it is written', but that interpretation occurs at allpoints along the route, and that saying that we are simply taking the Bible at face value is, bluntly put, being dishonest with ourselves.

[norbie]

"and that saying that we are simply taking the Bible at face value is, bluntly put, being dishonest with ourselves."

Can you explain this a little more, please? I realy don't understand what you mean by this.
Thank you so much,
Norbie

[SirTimothy]

Can you explain this a little more, please? I realy don't understand what you mean by this.

What I mean by this is that interpretation happens continually. Because of the fact that we are human, we interpret everything--it is part of being a rational being. Thus whenever we read the Bible, we are in fact interpreting it by our own prejudices, our own views, and our own actions. That interpretation is interpreting a text which has been translated by translators who have interpreted the original text. Then when we add the fact that it written to a completely different culture so a word-for-word translation produces at best inaccurate results as words have been used differently just between different New Testament authors, (let alone when people try and produce a Biblical meaning based on Septuagint greek in comparison with Hebrew :doh:) everything means something different to everyone. There is no concept of one tried and true interpretation of the Bible... apart from the meaning that has been given to it by various traditions (and want to get the different historic groups to agree on a meaning of all Scripture? Forget it) is almost irrelevant. There is no such thing as allowing Scripture to speak on its own, nor is there any such thing as an interpretation which is 'just based on the Bible'. Whatever we read we bring our own interpretation, bias and prejudices to our reading. We cannot escape from the fact that as rational beings, our rationality affects everything--it is what allows us to communicate by speech and writing, it is also what makes communication difficult because we all mean different things by our communication because we are all unique and our brains and consciousness all work in a different way.

Can you tell I wrote an essay on this 4 months ago? :-p

[ludovica]

That is so interesting Sir Timothy.. Would it be possible to give an example ?

[Paladin_Mark]

2 Peter 3:15-17

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.


An extreme example . But I believe there is a correct way to interpret scripture. Remembering it is God breathed.

Matthew 24:35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=35&version=31&context=verse)
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

[gtsecc]

neither?
How about we read it through the lens of the Church?

[norbie]

Thank you, Sir Timothy, I understand now what you said and fully agree with you. Makes life a little hard, isn't it?
One thing I noticed is that People can interpret Pauls and other Letters - but I never see the 4 Gospels in a different way and this is good.
Norbie

[SirTimothy]

Thank you, Sir Timothy, I understand now what you said and fully agree with you. Makes life a little hard, isn't it?

It does. It also means that a lot of the things that many people rate as 'absolutely important' and 'you must believe this to be saved' are in fact added on-after extras. John says this in chapter 21 of his Gospel:

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of god, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

John is clearly writing with a mission here, to help people believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that they can have life through him. Not to make people people in the penal subsitution theory, or predestination, or anything beyond that, but that simply to proclaim the message of Jesus the Messiah, the son of God, and that we may have eternal life. So yes, we all interpret the Bible differently, we all find different things in it that help us and aid us in our walk, we all see things slightly differently, yet we mustn't ever lose sight of this face: this is what the bible is about. Jesus being the son of God, and that by believing we may have life in his name. our arguing about scriptural interpretation and other such addendums really seem rather insignificant in light of that fact.

[brightmorningstar]

I think it is about exegesis and eisegesis.
What we want is exegesis not eisegesis.
We must be careful to get out from the Biblical texts what God wants to impart to us, which is exegesis.
As soon as we involve our prejudices we put things into what is written which is eisegesis.
The most common occurence of this is when we see things that we dont like and instead of the truth impacting us, we look to explain it away.

Now as to John, he obviously writes that he is writing so that people may believe what he is writing. However, he also writes that he and others and seen and heard the testimony of Jesus that he gives, and it is true. The testimony is true whether he is on a mission to convince people or not. This is the key to the gospel, its not fine arguments and reasoning but the truth convicts.

It is much the same with penal substitution. It is exegesis and comes from what the Bible record reveals in several places by several writers, not least those whom Jesus quotes and those whom Jesus taught. Whilst we may struggle to understand exactly the nature of God's wrath, exegesis, to dismiss God's wrath is based on our understanding of the nature of wrath and God and thats eisegesis.

[Colabomb]

neither?
How about we read it through the lens of the Church?

Because the CHurch is made up of fallible human beings, and thus contradicts itself constantly.

[SirTimothy]

Because the CHurch is made up of fallible human beings, and thus contradicts itself constantly.
Absolutely! I just wish I could rep click you... *goes into a corner muttering about Chrisbot*

[gtsecc]

Because the CHurch is made up of fallible human beings, and thus contradicts itself constantly.
Nope - you can clearly see unity on most things - for example the Trinity.

[gtsecc]

Absolutely! I just wish I could rep click you... *goes into a corner muttering about Chrisbot*
Nope - you don't get it.
You have to look at the confession which has come across the whole church.
You people drive me crazy.
If the Church is wrong, as many of you claim, then we can't trust the resurection.
For me, that is a problem.

[Aymn27]

I think it is about exegesis and eisegesis.
What we want is exegesis not eisegesis.
We must be careful to get out from the Biblical texts what God wants to impart to us, which is exegesis.
As soon as we involve our prejudices we put things into what is written which is eisegesis.
The most common occurence of this is when we see things that we dont like and instead of the truth impacting us, we look to explain it away.

Now as to John, he obviously writes that he is writing so that people may believe what he is writing. However, he also writes that he and others and seen and heard the testimony of Jesus that he gives, and it is true. The testimony is true whether he is on a mission to convince people or not. This is the key to the gospel, its not fine arguments and reasoning but the truth convicts.

It is much the same with penal substitution. It is exegesis and comes from what the Bible record reveals in several places by several writers, not least those whom Jesus quotes and those whom Jesus taught. Whilst we may struggle to understand exactly the nature of God's wrath, exegesis, to dismiss God's wrath is based on our understanding of the nature of wrath and God and thats eisegesis.
here here..I'm with you...

While we may interpret it in different ways, the original author - guided by the Holy Spirit - meant it in a specific way....much like our own US Constitution....we have to go back to the original language/intent of the text to let it "speak on its own" - we need to drop our interpretation for what the text is actually saying...and of course, context becomes an issue here...so it is a rather large problem!

I believe it is this particular issue that is dividing the AC - the other issues are just symptoms of this...

[ebia]

I think it is about exegesis and eisegesis.
What we want is exegesis not eisegesis.
We must be careful to get out from the Biblical texts what God wants to impart to us, which is exegesis.
As soon as we involve our prejudices we put things into what is written which is eisegesis.
The most common occurence of this is when we see things that we dont like and instead of the truth impacting us, we look to explain it away.

Now as to John, he obviously writes that he is writing so that people may believe what he is writing. However, he also writes that he and others and seen and heard the testimony of Jesus that he gives, and it is true. The testimony is true whether he is on a mission to convince people or not. This is the key to the gospel, its not fine arguments and reasoning but the truth convicts.

It is much the same with penal substitution. It is exegesis and comes from what the Bible record reveals in several places by several writers, not least those whom Jesus quotes and those whom Jesus taught. Whilst we may struggle to understand exactly the nature of God's wrath, exegesis, to dismiss God's wrath is based on our understanding of the nature of wrath and God and thats eisegesis.
The practice can never be as black-and-white as that. It's impossible to completely avoid our existing understanding, prejudices, culture, etc, so that all interpretation will be influenced by those. Pretending that one can completely avoid this only serves to make sure one doesn't. It's better to be upfront and admit to it. You cannot escape from the fact that the reader will influence the reading - an understanding based purely on the text is impossible (and, in fact, doesn't actually exist - the text relies on the reader bringing certain information).

All interpretations, penal substitution included, 'suffer' from this.

[SirTimothy]

The practice can never be as black-and-white as that. It's impossible to completely avoid our existing understanding, prejudices, culture, etc, so that all interpretation will be influenced by those. Pretending that one can completely avoid this only serves to make sure one doesn't. It's better to be upfront and admit to it. You cannot escape from the fact that the reader will influence the reading - an understanding based purely on the text is impossible (and, in fact, doesn't actually exist - the text relies on the reader bringing certain information).

All interpretations, penal substitution included, 'suffer' from this.
Exactly. Believing that you have erased all signs of your own interpretation is normally a sure sign that you haven't.

Tim

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia and Sir Timothy,

No both of you have missed my point. I merely explained what exegesis and eisegesis are. What the Bible does so often do, particularly the NT, is explain and describe the meaning of things for it to be clear enough.
Take for example love. There is no equivalent word in the NT. The Greek words used are agapeo and phileo, which mean love, but the modern word has many meanings the Greek words are more precise. Other contemporary Greek words such as stergo and eros are not used (except stergo twice in its negative)
However from contemporary texts we may still guess at the meanings of the NT uses of agapeo and phileo, but the NT holistically describes exactly what God’s agapeo is, an inclusive, complete sacrificial love. See for example John 3:16, 1 John 4, Ephesians 3 etc.
So the practice can be pretty much exactly black and white. But the key is that the texts do essentially say what they say. One has to interpret them based on what they say. We need to take the context of what is generally being said, by whom to whom and but prejudice comes in when one disputes what the texts actually say because one doesn’t believe it or doesn’t like it.

So the concept of penal substitution is based on what a number of texts actually say, and of course these from different writers. Its exegesis

[ebia]

I'm sorry, but you haven't actually demonstrated anything with that example - you've simply claimed that you can arrive at an understanding of what "God's agapeo" is from the text without bringing anything to the text. You haven't actually done so. In fact you have undoubtably brought a whole heap of other stuff to the table - claiming it's not there doesn't make it go away, and some of it's intended and necessary - for instance every time the text compares something to something else one is supposed to bring an understanding of that something else to the table. If one could actually clear one's previous knowledge and start with a blank page (so to speak) one wouldn't understand the first thing the text was talking about.So the concept of penal substitution is based on what a number of texts actually say, and of course these from different writers.It may well be based on what the text says, but that doesn't mean it hasn't brought a whole heap of other stuff along as well. One cannot do otherwise. The best one can do is minimise the stuff that's out of place and acknowledge it.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
Well I used agapeo because the NT text tells us what it is
en toutw estin h agaph ouc oti hmeiV hgaphsamen ton qeon all oti autoV hgaphsen hmaV kai apesteilen ton uion autou ilasmon peri twn amartiwn hmwn
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. -KJV

So we know what love is. Sorry ebia but if we get a definition of what a word means from the dictionary would we not understand it at all the same? How could we be communicating now?
But in fact I believe you were alluding to the situation where this basic premise is reinforced and elaborated on throughout the NT.
So we know 1 John 4:8 God is agapeo love because God sent His Son to be a propitiation for us, and that there is no greater love than Jesus laying down His life for us John 15:13.

It may well be based on what the text says, but that doesn't mean it hasn't brought a whole heap of other stuff along as well. One cannot do otherwise. The best one can do is minimise the stuff that's out of place and acknowledge it.
On the contrary, it is based on what the text says (exegesis) and is not bringing a whole heap of other stuff which is would likely be eisegesis
:)

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Well I used agapeo because the NT text tells us what it is
en toutw estin h agaph ouc oti hmeiV hgaphsamen ton qeon all oti autoV hgaphsen hmaV kai apesteilen ton uion autou ilasmon peri twn amartiwn hmwn
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. -KJV

So we know what love is. Sorry ebia but if we get a definition of what a word means from the dictionary would we not understand it at all the same? How could we be communicating now?
But in fact I believe you were alluding to the situation where this basic premise is reinforced and elaborated on throughout the NT.
So we know 1 John 4:8 God is agapeo love because God sent His Son to be a propitiation for us, and that there is no greater love than Jesus laying down His life for us John 15:13.

It may well be based on what the text says, but that doesn't mean it hasn't brought a whole heap of other stuff along as well. One cannot do otherwise. The best one can do is minimise the stuff that's out of place and acknowledge it.
On the contrary, it is based on what the text says (exegesis) and is not bringing a whole heap of other stuff which is would likely be eisegesis
:)
It's based on what the text 'says' and a whole lot of other stuff. WIthout the other stuff the text remains nothing more than a load of black squiggles on white paper. To begin to give meaning to those texts you bring a whole load of other stuff like your preexisting understanding of love, of father-son relationships, about the value of one's life and giving it up, possibly a load of stuff about the 1st century Jewish attitudes in which it happened, about 'normal' worldly relationships with which to compare it, and (rather more importantly) a vast amount of far more subtle stuff that is harder to identify. Claiming not to be doing so doesn't make it so, even if you do know a fancy word for what you claim to be doing and a fancy word for what you claim not to be doing.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
Sorry I don’t quite understand how the words of the Biblical text are any more or less ‘black and white squiggles’ than our communication now.
My pre-existing understanding of love is different from the agape the text describes.
As to Father-Son relationships that’s what the text describes and that’s in accordance with Jesus NT teaching, how we can understand our relationship with God. That’s why Christian family values are so important, whilst there are aspects of the family life that has changed since NT times the essential man/woman, husband/wife and children arrangement is so important to uphold. Loose that and we find it harder to understand what God wants our relationship with Him to be.
We must be especially careful not to assume Jesus, His thinking, and therefore His teaching, was somehow a human product; to do so would be denying who He claimed His is and what He claimed He taught as from the Father God.

[erin74]

What I mean by this is that interpretation happens continually. Because of the fact that we are human, we interpret everything--it is part of being a rational being. Thus whenever we read the Bible, we are in fact interpreting it by our own prejudices, our own views, and our own actions. That interpretation is interpreting a text which has been translated by translators who have interpreted the original text. Then when we add the fact that it written to a completely different culture so a word-for-word translation produces at best inaccurate results as words have been used differently just between different New Testament authors, (let alone when people try and produce a Biblical meaning based on Septuagint greek in comparison with Hebrew :doh:) everything means something different to everyone. There is no concept of one tried and true interpretation of the Bible... apart from the meaning that has been given to it by various traditions (and want to get the different historic groups to agree on a meaning of all Scripture? Forget it) is almost irrelevant. There is no such thing as allowing Scripture to speak on its own, nor is there any such thing as an interpretation which is 'just based on the Bible'. Whatever we read we bring our own interpretation, bias and prejudices to our reading. We cannot escape from the fact that as rational beings, our rationality affects everything--it is what allows us to communicate by speech and writing, it is also what makes communication difficult because we all mean different things by our communication because we are all unique and our brains and consciousness all work in a different way.

Can you tell I wrote an essay on this 4 months ago? :-p
I do think that we have to be very cautious about playing the 'culture card', because we must also recognise God's authorship of the bible, and he is not constrained by culture.

[erin74]

2 Peter 3:15-17

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.


An extreme example . But I believe there is a correct way to interpret scripture. Remembering it is God breathed.

Matthew 24:35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=35&version=31&context=verse)
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
yep
That's the heart of it.

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Sorry I don’t quite understand how the words of the Biblical text are any more or less ‘black and white squiggles’ than our communication now.
They aren't. Nothing I've said about the biblical text wouldn't apply just as much to any other text including this one.

My pre-existing understanding of love is different from the agape the text describes
And? That doesn't mean it doesn't have an influence in how you try to make sense of the text.


As to Father-Son relationships that’s what the text describes and that’s in accordance with Jesus NT teaching, how we can understand our relationship with God.
You seem to be missing the point - which is that you can't make sense of the text without having an idea about father-son relationships, and your understanding of what the text 'says' will depend on how you already understand those relationships. I brought it up as an obvious example of the text explicity relying on you bringing external understanding.

We must be especially careful not to assume Jesus, His thinking, and therefore His teaching, was somehow a human product; to do so would be denying who He claimed His is and what He claimed He taught as from the Father God.
There are also problems with imaging that his thinking, teaching, etc isn't human. One must not deny either his divinity nor his humanity. But that's off the topic - the issues I've raised aren't dependent upon who wrote the text, but on who is reading it.

[ebia]

God isn't, but much of the way he has chosen to communicate is embedded in cultural contexts and can't be properly understood removed from those contexts.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
Thank you for your response.

And? That doesn't mean it doesn't have an influence in how you try to make sense of the text.
Well yes it does, that’s my point, My pre-existing understanding of love is different from the agape the text describes.

You seem to be missing the point - which is that you can't make sense of the text without having an idea about father-son relationships, and your understanding of what the text 'says' will depend on how you already understand those relationships. I brought it up as an obvious example of the text explicity relying on you bringing external understanding.
No that’s not my point. I may relate to the father-son relationship from experience or not relate to it from experience, but the text says what is says. My experience may be that my earthly father is like God loving me and giving me what was best for me, or not, or I may have no experience of ever knowing my earthly father. Experiences vary, the testimony of God is the same.

There are also problems with imaging that his thinking, teaching, etc isn't human. One must not deny either his divinity nor his humanity.
On the contrary that is the point exactly and on topic. I don’t think human culture is divine, Jesus says His Kingdom is not of the world. Jesus was fully human and fully divine, but what He taught was of God and about God, that’s what He said. He taught about the culture of the time and other cultures and times.

But that's off the topic - the issues I've raised aren't dependent upon who wrote the text, but on who is reading it.
I disagree, all issues raised are dependent on what the text says regardless of who is reading it. Many people may come at the text with preconceived ideas but the text remains the same and the preconceived ideas will either be in accordance with the text or not.

God isn't, but much of the way he has chosen to communicate is embedded in cultural contexts and can't be properly understood removed from those contexts
On the contrary I would say the opposite. Much of what God has revealed is generally counter cultural and can often be properly understood removed through that. The NT shows us that it didn’t matter what culture, Jewish, Greek, Roman etc, some believed Jesus and some didn’t.
:)

[karen freeinchristman]

we must also recognise God's authorship of the bible

I believe there is a correct way to interpret scripture. Remembering it is God breathed.


'God-breathed' is not exactly the same thing as God being the author of the Bible, is it?

[SirTimothy]

'God-breathed' is not exactly the same thing as God being the author of the Bible, is it?
God being the direct author of the Bible is one evangelical concept I have never been able to get my brain around.

Timothy

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Sir Timothy,
God being the direct author of the Bible is one evangelical concept I have never been able to get my brain around.
But the Bible is not just inspiration, its also contains the recorded word of God spoken by Jesus... so I would have thought it is a shared Christian concept rather than 'evangelical'

[Iosias]

God being the direct author of the Bible is one evangelical concept I have never been able to get my brain around.

Timothy

2 Timothy 3:16, 17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

[Colabomb]

God being the direct author of the Bible is one evangelical concept I have never been able to get my brain around.

Timothy

I don't understand how inspiration has been so diluted.

Inspiration does not mean that God nudged them and they may or may not have put in what God "suggested".

No, God Spoke through man. He used their styles and their knowledge to teach us what needed to be taught. If the Scriptures are God Breathed, then they originate from God.

The Inspiration of Scripture, is not analogous to the Inspiration of a Hallmark card.

[gtsecc]

Whatever level of "God Breathed" one chooses, upon what do they base that claim?
Surely not from the Bible itself?
That is obviously circular to everyone isn't it?

[pmcleanj]

Whatever level of "God Breathed" one chooses, upon what do they base that claim?
Surely not from the Bible itself?
That is obviously circular to everyone isn't it?

It's actually worse than that: not only is it circular, but it often involves ignoring the common-sense meaning of the words used in the Bible. The recurrent reference to "pas graphe theopneustos" is case in point. "Pas graphe" has a specific emphatic common-sense meaning, and "the Bible" isn't it.

[SirTimothy]

It's actually worse than that: not only is it circular, but it often involves ignoring the common-sense meaning of the words used in the Bible. The recurrent reference to "pas graphe theopneustos" is case in point. "Pas graphe" has a specific emphatic common-sense meaning, and "the Bible" isn't it.
Right.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,
Whatever level of "God Breathed" one chooses, upon what do they base that claim?
Surely not from the Bible itself?
That is obviously circular to everyone isn't it?

Of course its circular, the word of God affirming the word of God. Jesus, who says he is the truth tells us the truth. There seems to be some basic logic lacking here.

Whatever level of God breathed do you think it is? Surely if is dependant on what one chooses, one may choose that none of it is God breathed. :)

[brightmorningstar]

Dear pmcleanj,
It's actually worse than that: not only is it circular, but it often involves ignoring the common-sense meaning of the words used in the Bible.
Now that is a circular argument to the point I was making, the exegesis is based on the meaning of the words. I have shown that with agape, did you not agree with what I wrote?

The recurrent reference to "pas graphe theopneustos" is case in point. "Pas graphe" has a specific emphatic common-sense meaning, and "the Bible" isn't it.
Sorry but here is a case in point, I understand the meanings of all the words you used but I cant understand what you are saying. The Bible isn’t a specific emphatic common sense meaning? Could you elaborate a bit please?
:)

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Thank you for your response.

And? That doesn't mean it doesn't have an influence in how you try to make sense of the text.
Well yes it does, that’s my point, My pre-existing understanding of love is different from the agape the text describes.

You seem to be missing the point - which is that you can't make sense of the text without having an idea about father-son relationships, and your understanding of what the text 'says' will depend on how you already understand those relationships. I brought it up as an obvious example of the text explicity relying on you bringing external understanding.
No that’s not my point. I may relate to the father-son relationship from experience or not relate to it from experience, but the text says what is says. My experience may be that my earthly father is like God loving me and giving me what was best for me, or not, or I may have no experience of ever knowing my earthly father. Experiences vary, the testimony of God is the same.

There are also problems with imaging that his thinking, teaching, etc isn't human. One must not deny either his divinity nor his humanity.
On the contrary that is the point exactly and on topic. I don’t think human culture is divine, Jesus says His Kingdom is not of the world. Jesus was fully human and fully divine, but what He taught was of God and about God, that’s what He said. He taught about the culture of the time and other cultures and times.

But that's off the topic - the issues I've raised aren't dependent upon who wrote the text, but on who is reading it.
I disagree, all issues raised are dependent on what the text says regardless of who is reading it. Many people may come at the text with preconceived ideas but the text remains the same and the preconceived ideas will either be in accordance with the text or not.

God isn't, but much of the way he has chosen to communicate is embedded in cultural contexts and can't be properly understood removed from those contexts
On the contrary I would say the opposite. Much of what God has revealed is generally counter cultural and can often be properly understood removed through that. The NT shows us that it didn’t matter what culture, Jewish, Greek, Roman etc, some believed Jesus and some didn’t.
:)
I typed out a detail response to this, and then lost it. On reflection, you don't seem to be getting the basics of what I'm saying, so I'm not at all sure it's worth me retyping it.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
I typed out a detail response to this, and then lost it. On reflection, you don't seem to be getting the basics of what I'm saying, so I'm not at all sure it's worth me retyping it.
Thats a pity I hope you can re-type.:)
we seeem to be saying the opposite of each other but that we cant get the reasons across. I would love to hear what you thought of my last responses.

[Iosias]

That is obviously circular to everyone isn't it?

SECTION II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
Of the Old Testament:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Of the New Testament:
The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John.
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
SECTION III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
Scripture Proof Texts
Luke xvi. 29, 31; Eph. ii. 20; Rev. xxii. 18, 19; 2 Tim. iii. 16. Luke xxiv. 27, 44; Rom. iii. 2; 2 Peter i. 21.

These sections affirm the following propositions: --

1. That the complete canon of Scripture embraces in the two great divisions of the Old and the New Testaments all the particular books here named.
2. That the books commonly called Apocrypha form no part of that canon, and are to be regarded as of no more authority than any other human writings.
3. That all the canonical books were divinely inspired, and are thus given to us as an authoritative rule of faith and practice.

1. The complete canon of Scripture embraces in the two great divisions of the Old and New Testaments all the particular books here named.

The Old Testament is the collection of inspired writings given by God to his Church during the Old Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace; and the New Testament is the collection of those inspired writings which he gave during the New or Christian Dispensation of that Covenant.

We determine what books have a place in this canon or divine rule by an examination of the evidences which show that each of them, severally, was written by the inspired. prophet or apostle whose name it bears; or, as in the case of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, written under the superintendence and published by the authority of an apostle. This evidence in the case of the Sacred Scriptures is of the same kind of historical and critical proof as is relied upon by all literary men to establish the genuineness and authenticity of any other ancient writings, such as the Odes of Horace or the works of Herodotus. In general this evidence is (a) Internal, such as language, style, and the character of the matter they contain; (b) External, such as the testimony of contemporaneous writers, the universal consent of contemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from independent credible sources.

The genuineness of the books constituting the Old Testament canon as now received by all Protestants is established as follows: -

(1.) Christ and his apostles endorse as genuine and authentic the canon of Jewish Scriptures as it existed in their time. (a) Christ often quotes as the Word of God the separate books and the several divisions embraced in the Jewish Scriptures -- viz., the Law, the Prophets, and. the Holy Writings or Psalms. Mark xiv. 49; Luke xxiv. 44; John v. 39. (b) The apostles also quote them as the Word of God; 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16; Acts i. 16. (c) Christ often rebuked the Jews for disobeying, but never for forging or corrupting their Scriptures, Matt xxii. 29.

(2.) The Jewish canon thus endorsed by Christ and his apostles is the same as that we now have. (a) The New Testament writers quote as Scripture almost every one of the books we recognize, and no others. (b) The Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, made in Egypt B.C. 285, which was itself frequently quoted by Christ and his apostles, embraced every book contained in our copies. (c) Josephus, born A.D. 37, enumerates as Hebrew Scriptures the same books by their classes. (d) The testimony of the early Christian writers uniformly agrees with that of the ancient Jews as to every book. (e) Ever since the time of Christ both Jews and Christians, while rival and hostile parties, have separately kept the same canon, and agree perfectly as to the genuineness and authenticity of every book.
The evidence which establishes the canonical authority of the several books of the New Testament may be generally stated as follows: (a) The early Christian writers in all parts of the world agree in quoting as of apostolical authority the books we receive, while they quote all other contemporaneous writings only for illustration. (b) The early Church Fathers furnish a number of catalogues of the books received by them as apostolical, all of which agree perfectly as to most of the books, and differ only in a slight degree with reference to some last written or least generally circulated. (c) The earliest translations of the Scriptures prove that, at the time they were made, the books they contain were recognized as Scripture. The Peshito, or early Syriac translation, agrees almost entirely with ours; and the Vulgate, prepared by Jerome A.D. 385, was based on the Italic or early Latin version, and agrees entirely with ours. (d) The internal evidence corroborates the external testimony in the case of all the books. This consists of the language and idiom in which they are written; the harmony in all essentials in the midst of great variety in form and circumstantials; the elevated spirituality and doctrinal consistency of all the books; and their practical power over the consciences and hearts of men.

2. But the books called Apocrypha form no part of the sacred canon, and are to be regarded as of no more authority than any other human writings.

The word Apocrypha (anything hidden) has been applied to certain ancient writings whose authorship is not manifest, and for which unfounded claims have been set up for a place in the canon. Some of these have been associated with the Old and. some with the New Testament. In this section of the Confession, however, the name is applied. principally to those spurious scriptures for which a place is claimed in the Old Testament canon by the Roman Church. These are Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees. They also prefix to the book of Daniel the History of Susannah, and insert in the third chapter the Song of the Three Children; and add to the end of the book the History of Bel and the Dragon.
That these books have no right to a place in the canon is proved by the following facts: (1.) They never formed a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They have always been rejected by the Jews, to whose guardianship the Old Testament Scriptures were committed. (2.) None of them were ever quoted by Christ or the apostles. (3.) They were never embraced in the list of the canonical books by the early Fathers; and even in the Roman Church their authority was not accepted by the most learned and candid men until after it was made an article of faith by the Council of Trent, late in the sixteenth century. (4.) The internal evidence presented by their contents disproves their claims. None of them make any claim to inspiration, while the best of them disclaim it. Some of them consist of childish fables, and inculcate bad morals.

And this section teaches --
3. That all the canonical Scriptures were divinely inspired, and are thus given us as an authoritative rule of faith and practice.
The books of Scripture were written by the instrumentality of men, and the national and personal peculiarities of their authors have been evidently as freely expressed in their writing, and their natural faculties, intellectual and moral, as freely exercised in their production, as those of the authors of any other writings. Nevertheless these books are, one and all, in thought and verbal expression, in substance and form, wholly the Word of God, conveying with absolute accuracy and divine authority all that God meant them to convey, without any human additions or admixtures. This was accomplished by a supernatural influence of the Spirit of God acting upon the spirits of the sacred writers, called "inspiration;" which accompanied them uniformly in what they wrote; and which, without violating the free operation of their faculties, yet directed them in all they wrote, and secured the infallible expression of it in words. The nature of this divine influence we, of course, can no more understand than we can in the case of any other miracle. But the effects are plain and certain -- viz., that all written under it is the very Word of God, of infallible truth, and of divine authority; and this infallibility and authority attach as well to the verbal expression in which the revelation is conveyed as to the matter of the revelation itself.
The fact that the Scriptures are thus inspired is proved because they assert it of themselves; and because they must either be credited as true in this respect, or rejected as false in all respects; 'and because God authenticated the claims of their writers by accompanying their teaching with "signs and wonders and divers miracles." Heb. ii. 4. Wherever God sends his "sign," there he commands belief; but it is impossible that he could unconditionally command belief except to truth infallibly conveyed.

(1.) The Old Testament writers claimed to be inspired. Deut. xxxi. 19 -- 22; xxxiv. 10; Num. xvi. 28, 29; 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. As a characteristic fact, they speak in the name of God, prefacing their messages with a "Thus saith the LORD. "The mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." Deut. xviii. 21, 22; 1 Kings xxi. 19; Jer. ix. 12, etc.

(2.) The New Testament writers introduce their quotations from the Old Testament with such formulas as, "The Holy Ghost saith," Heb. iii. 7; "The Holy Ghost this signifying," Heb. ix. 8; "Saith God," Acts ii. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10; "The Lord by the mouth of his servant David saith," Acts iv. 25; "The Lord limiteth in David a certain day, saying," Heb. iv. 7.

(3.) The inspiration of the Old Testament is expressly affirmed in the New Testament. Luke i. 70; Heb. i. 1; 2 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. i. 10 -- 12; 2 Pet. i. 21.

(4.) Christ and his apostles constantly quote the Old Testament as infallible, as that which must be fulfilled. Matt. v. 18; John x. 35; Luke xxiv. 44; Matt. ii. 15 -- 23, etc.

(5.) Inspiration was promised to the apostles. Matt. x. 19; xxviii. 19, 20; Luke xii. 12; John xiii. 20; xiv. 26; xv. 26, 27; xvi. 13.

(6.) They claimed to have the Spirit, in fulfillment of the promise of Christ, Acts ii. 33; xv. 28; 1 Thess. i. 5; -- to speak as the prophets of God, 1 Cor. iv. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 8; -- to speak with plenary authority, 1 Cor. ii. 13; 2 Cor. xiii. 2-4; Gal. i. 8, 9. They put their writings on a level with the Old Testament Scriptures. 2 Pet. iii. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27.

http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah1.htm

[erin74]

'God-breathed' is not exactly the same thing as God being the author of the Bible, is it?
God breathed implies very strongly that it is from and of God. Our breath is from and of us, and so to the bible is from and of God. He cannot be seperated from his word.

[erin74]

Whatever level of "God Breathed" one chooses, upon what do they base that claim?
Surely not from the Bible itself?
That is obviously circular to everyone isn't it?
It has to be circular - otherwise there would be a greater authority.

There are plenty of tangents though to get on the circle.

For a good read on this topic.
The Blueprint
Matthias Media
Ch 1 Circles and Tangents is on the authority of scripture.

excellent study guide on doctrine based on the AFES (australian fellowship of evangelical students, part of the international body IFES) doctrinal statement.

[brightmorningstar]

It has to be circular - otherwise there would be a greater authority.

Yes. :thumbsup: spot on:)

[karen freeinchristman]

otherwise there would be a greater authority
The greater authority belongs to God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God speaks to us authoritatively through the narrative of the Bible, through anointed people (prophets), people equipped by the Holy Spirit, in speaking and in writing. Of course the Bible is inspired. Just as we say 'Let God be God', we must also say, 'let the Bible be the Bible'.

The Bible is not an end in itself. It is there so that, by its proper use, the creator may be glorified and the creation may be healed. It is our task to be the people through whom this extraordinary vision comes to pass. We are thus entrusted with a privilege too great for casual handling, too vital to remain a mere matter of debate.
So what am I saying? I am saying that we mustn’t belittle scripture by bringing the world’s models of authority into it. We must let scripture be itself, and that is a hard task. Scripture contains many things that I don’t know, and that you don’t know; many things we are waiting to discover; passages which are lying dormant waiting for us to dig them out. Awaken them. We must then make sure that the church, armed in this way, is challenging the world’s view of authority. So that, we must determine—corporately as well as individually—to become in a true sense, people of the book. Not people of the book in the Islamic sense, where this book just drops down and crushes people and you say it’s the will of Allah, and I don’t understand it, and I can’t do anything about it. But, people of the book in the Christian sense; people who are being remade, judged and remolded by the Spirit through scripture. It seems to me that evangelical tradition has often become in bondage to a sort of lip-service scripture principle even while debating in fact how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (Not literally, but there are equivalents in our tradition.) Instead, I suggest that our task is to seize this privilege with both hands, and use it to the glory of God and the redemption of the world.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

[brightmorningstar]

Dear karen freeinchristman,

I agree but as to the Bible being circular, it is. There is no greater revelation. It is the authorative revelation of God through the Holy Spirit. ... but I think we agree :)

[brightmorningstar]

The same Holy Spirit cannot say the Bible is wrong because firstly He reminds us the Bible is right, John 14:26, and secondly all scripture is God breathed 2 Tim 3:16.
Its circular.

[xristos.anesti]

.

[xristos.anesti]

Christ is risen!

It is the way that person - based on his/her own experience and knowledge and faith that all form his/her own way of thinking - shall accept something or deny it. This is regarding everything, also the Holy Scriptures.

It is based on this - that one shall accept the reading of the Holy Scriptures through the mind of the Church or through some other way, for it is of our own choice the way that we shall do something.

It means nothing for me to argue with anyone here - who in their own mind see that their view is right - being that they disagree with me, that is me being Orthodox - reading the Bible the Orthodox way and someone else being heterodox and reading the Bible that way.

So, it is only at this time (time when we ask for the opinion of others and not yet having our own opinion – that is when we are seeking for explanation) that we can be influenced – for once we make our own opinion we do not change it easily for the sake of our pride and selfishness (or would it be the total lack of facts in other views). And even then we choose the opinion of others for whom we know we agreed with before and not from those we know we disagreed with.

It is one of those human characteristics that are so painful – in the end; it is between God and us.

I hold that reading it the way that Orthodox do is right, but can I force anyone to do so if they see it different? Even if, to me, the arguments and "proofs" and “facts” that I present in the case are so obvious – it means nothing, for the other side shall have their arguments and "proofs" and “facts” that are, to them, so obvious.

So, which way should we read the Bible?

Which way should we do anything?

Only God knows.

For I know for myself, and you for yourself, as long as we keep praying for eachother everything else - shall be shown in a good time to come.

[gtsecc]

Dear karen freeinchristman,

I agree but as to the Bible being circular, it is. There is no greater revelation. It is the authorative revelation of God through the Holy Spirit. ... but I think we agree :)
So, you can't see the problem with that?

[gtsecc]

The same Holy Spirit cannot say the Bible is wrong because firstly He reminds us the Bible is right, John 14:26, and secondly all scripture is God breathed 2 Tim 3:16.
Its circular.
My head just exploded.

[erin74]

My head just exploded.
that sounds.... messy....