The Bible...take it or leave it ?

[follower of Christ]

Is the bible our foundation for Gods truth ?
What role does the bible play in the life of the believer ?

Im including a short passage from 2 Timothy that I believe shows us very clearly what the bible should be to the church. That we NEED to be very concerned about doctrine and making certain that we are aligned with His word to the best of our ability.
Dotrine seemed to be pretty important issue to Paul and Timothy. Should it be any less meaningful for the rest of us ?
The following really doesnt leave much guesswork as to how Paul felt about the scriptures in the life of the believer.

You however have carefully followed my doctrine, lifestyle, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, in Iconium, at Lystra--what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors shall advance worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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 proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:10-17 EMTV)

 

[seekandlisten]

Is the bible our foundation for Gods truth ?
What role does the bible play in the life of the believer ?

Im including a short passage from 2 Timothy that I believe shows us very clearly what the bible should be to the church. That we NEED to be very concerned about doctrine and making certain that we are aligned with His word to the best of our ability.
Dotrine seemed to be pretty important issue to Paul and Timothy. Should it be any less meaningful for the rest of us ?
The following really doesnt leave much guesswork as to how Paul felt about the scriptures in the life of the believer.

You however have carefully followed my doctrine, lifestyle, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, in Iconium, at Lystra--what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors shall advance worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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 proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:10-17 EMTV)

Well, I'm sure this will turn into a wonderful debate, but I'm bored so I'll bite.

"Is the bible our foundation for Gods truth ?" No, Christ is the foundation for God's Truth.

"What role does the bible play in the life of the believer ?"Personal learning, guidance, rebuke, and whatever God chooses to reveal through it.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,[/u] that the man of God may be proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work."

This part gets taken to all sorts of levels. God did not literally speak the words written in the bible. God did 'inspire' the men that wrote the bible and His Word is contained in the bible. 'All Scripture' does not refer to the canonized bible as that didn't happen yet. More or less the bible contains the Word of God it is however not literally the Word of God.

 

[toddm]

This part gets taken to all sorts of levels. God did not literally speak the words written in the bible. God did 'inspire' the men that wrote the bible and His Word is contained in the bible. 'All Scripture' does not refer to the canonized bible as that didn't happen yet. More or less the bible contains the Word of God it is however not literally the Word of God.

What is your definition of "inspired"? And where do you get this idea from that all 66 books of the canon are not literally the Word of God? Which books/sections are "uninspired"?

And FOC, what is the EMTV translation?

 

[seekandlisten]

This part gets taken to all sorts of levels. God did not literally speak the words written in the bible. God did 'inspire' the men that wrote the bible and His Word is contained in the bible. 'All Scripture' does not refer to the canonized bible as that didn't happen yet. More or less the bible contains the Word of God it is however not literally the Word of God.

What is your definition of "inspired"? And where do you get this idea from that all 66 books of the canon are not literally the Word of God? Which books/sections are "uninspired"?

I think I put my definition of 'inspired' in my earlier post. I guess I could add that I believe it's 'God-breathed' in that if we ask God, He reveals Himself in Scripture. Why should all 66 books be considered the "literal" Word of God? When was 2 Timothy written? When was the bible canonized? Look it up but I'm pretty sure the final version of the bible we have was canonized in the 15th cenury. I never said any books/section were uninspired.

 

[toddm]

This part gets taken to all sorts of levels. God did not literally speak the words written in the bible. God did 'inspire' the men that wrote the bible and His Word is contained in the bible. 'All Scripture' does not refer to the canonized bible as that didn't happen yet. More or less the bible contains the Word of God it is however not literally the Word of God.

What is your definition of "inspired"? And where do you get this idea from that all 66 books of the canon are not literally the Word of God? Which books/sections are "uninspired"?

I think I put my definition of 'inspired' in my earlier post. I guess I could add that I believe it's 'God-breathed' in that if we ask God, He reveals Himself in Scripture. Why should all 66 books be considered the "literal" Word of God? When was 2 Timothy written? When was the bible canonized? Look it up but I'm pretty sure the final version of the bible we have was canonized in the 15th cenury. I never said any books/section were uninspired.

The OT was canonized by 70 AD and all 27 books of the NT were canonized by 367 AD. How can ALL Scripture be God-breathed and yet not be His Word? Do you mean by "literal" that God dictated Scripture? If so, then that's not how divine inspiration worked.

 

[follower of Christ]

Why should all 66 books be considered the "literal" Word of God?

So you get to decide what you think is inspired or not ?
Meaning that if letter contains something you dont like you can just dismiss it as 'uninspired'?
If so, thats pretty convenient, dont you think ?

 

[follower of Christ]

And FOC, what is the EMTV translation?

English Majority Text Version.
Supposedly translated directly from the EMTs themselves, not the TR.

 

[seekandlisten]

The OT was canonized by 70 AD and all 27 books of the NT were canonized by 367 AD. How can ALL Scripture be God-breathed and yet not be His Word? Do you mean by "literal" that God dictated Scripture? If so, then that's not how divine inspiration worked.

So if only the OT was canonized in 70 AD, right around the time 2 Timothy was written, that verse only refers to the OT right?

Personally I believe the bible to be books written by God's followers. I think the word 'inspired' only applies to them in their original language and by their original authors. Through translation and the fact that man is fallible, the bible we hold today in its many versions and translations contains this 'inspired' Word but does not make the canonized bible itself infallible nor does it make it the one and only true source of all things.

 

[seekandlisten]

Why should all 66 books be considered the "literal" Word of God?

So you get to decide what you think is inspired or not ?
Meaning that if letter contains something you dont like you can just dismiss it as 'uninspired'?
If so, thats pretty convenient, dont you think ?

It would be pretty convenient put that way yet that is not what I said. I asked why should the 66 books of the bible be considered the "literal' Word of God plain and simple. I don't think they are the 'literal' Word and I ask you to justify that position if you think it is.

 

[toddm]

The OT was canonized by 70 AD and all 27 books of the NT were canonized by 367 AD. How can ALL Scripture be God-breathed and yet not be His Word? Do you mean by "literal" that God dictated Scripture? If so, then that's not how divine inspiration worked.

So if only the OT was canonized in 70 AD, right around the time 2 Timothy was written, that verse only refers to the OT right?

Personally I believe the bible to be books written by God's followers. I think the word 'inspired' only applies to them in their original language and by their original authors. Through translation and the fact that man is fallible, the bible we hold today in its many versions and translations contains this 'inspired' Word but does not make the canonized bible itself infallible nor does it make it the one and only true source of all things.

Peter calls Paul's letters "Scripture" in 2 Peter, meaning that the early church accepted Paul's and others writings as divinely inspired Scripture equivalent w/ OT Scripture.
What is your understanding of infallibility and inerrancy when it comes to the Bible and it's transmission?

 

[follower of Christ]

Personally I believe the bible to be books written by God's followers. I think the word 'inspired' only applies to them in their original language and by their original authors. Through translation and the fact that man is fallible, the bible we hold today in its many versions and translations contains this 'inspired' Word but does not make the canonized bible itself infallible nor does it make it the one and only true source of all things.

So in other words there is no reason for us to even own bibles since EVERY word in them is subject to suspicion ?
I mean, what other conclusion could one draw ?

 

[follower of Christ]

Peter calls Paul's letters "Scripture" in 2 Peter, meaning that the early church accepted Paul's and others writings as divinely inspired Scripture equivalent w/ OT Scripture.
What is your understanding of infallibility and inerrancy when it comes to the Bible and it's transmission?

Absolutely.

and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them about these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16 EMTV)

Peter HAD to consider Pauls writings to BE scripture to make this comparison.

 

[follower of Christ]

Why should all 66 books be considered the "literal" Word of God?

So you get to decide what you think is inspired or not ?
Meaning that if letter contains something you dont like you can just dismiss it as 'uninspired'?
If so, thats pretty convenient, dont you think ?

It would be pretty convenient put that way yet that is not what I said. I asked why should the 66 books of the bible be considered the "literal' Word of God plain and simple. I don't think they are the 'literal' Word and I ask you to justify that position if you think it is.

Im very aware of what you said, S...its just that I like to take things and run them to their only logical conclusion.
If you dont believe that the WHOLE bible IS THE inspired word of the Living God, then the logical conclusion would be that you could simply dismiss ANY part of it that you didnt like as 'uninspired'.
I mean, we can play game of semantics with the word 'literal', but I dont think we'recomparing what is allegorical/parable in the scriptures here based on the context of the discussion

 

[seekandlisten]

Personally I believe the bible to be books written by God's followers. I think the word 'inspired' only applies to them in their original language and by their original authors. Through translation and the fact that man is fallible, the bible we hold today in its many versions and translations contains this 'inspired' Word but does not make the canonized bible itself infallible nor does it make it the one and only true source of all things.

So in other words there is no reason for us to even own bibles since EVERY word in them is subject to suspicion ?

I you want to go all conspiracy thoery I guess so, personally I'm not going to fall in line with another man's interpetation when it goes against all forms of reason and logic.

[
I mean, what other conclusion could one draw ?

umm...I don't know, maybe to put faith in God rather than the bible.

 

[seekandlisten]

Im very aware of what you said, S...its just that I like to take things and run them to their only logical conclusion.
If you dont believe that the WHOLE bible IS THE inspired word of the Living God, then the logical conclusion would be that you could simply dismiss ANY part of it that you didnt like as 'uninspired'.
I mean, we can play game of semantics with the word 'literal', but I dont think we'recomparing what is allegorical/parable in the scriptures here based on the context of the discussion

Its not 'running them to their logical conclusion' though. It's saying if its not this way its that way. How logical is that?

 

[seekandlisten]

Personally I believe the bible to be books written by God's followers. I think the word 'inspired' only applies to them in their original language and by their original authors. Through translation and the fact that man is fallible, the bible we hold today in its many versions and translations contains this 'inspired' Word but does not make the canonized bible itself infallible nor does it make it the one and only true source of all things.

Peter calls Paul's letters "Scripture" in 2 Peter, meaning that the early church accepted Paul's and others writings as divinely inspired Scripture equivalent w/ OT Scripture.
What is your understanding of infallibility and inerrancy when it comes to the Bible and it's transmission?

What do you mean other than what I've already stated. I simply don't believe in the ridiculousness of doctrines being made over spelling, contradictions found, breaking down every literal translation of each word syllable etc to get a point across.

 

[follower of Christ]

"Is the bible our foundation for Gods truth ?" No, Christ is the foundation for God's Truth.

Im fairly certain that, given the context of my statement, that it can be assumed that Im speaking about WRITTEN foundation ;)
I think we all know who Christ is

"What role does the bible play in the life of the believer ?"Personal learning, guidance, rebuke, and whatever God chooses to reveal through it.

How can we rebuke someone else if we dont know what is inspired...what is Gods 'literal' word....and what isnt ?
All that can happen when we dont see the bible AS Gods perfect word, His infallible truth, is that someone can just say they dont think the part being used to rebuke them either is inspired or they can insist that the correcting parties 'interpretation' is inaccurate....or even worse, accuse the interpreters themselves of being wrong as we've seen mentioned in this forum this past week.

If we cannot agree on absolutes then there is no truth to be learned between us as there is no absolute truth. Everything is subjective based on our whims.

This part gets taken to all sorts of levels.

Its pretty clear, however.
I doubt it was said just so we could ignore it

God did not literally speak the words written in the bible.

Didnt He ?
Does God have a literal 'mouth' with lips and a fleshly tongue ?
How does God 'talk' ?

God did 'inspire' the men that wrote the bible and His Word is contained in the bible.

And maybe that is Gods language...how that which is SPIRIT 'speaks' to that which is fleshly.
I think youre taking a few liberties with logic and reason here, S

'All Scripture' does not refer to the canonized bible as that didn't happen yet.

So youre saying that God is not all knowing who knew what He WOULD inspire very shortly ?
I think some of us have a much more broad view of 'God' than that.

More or less the bible contains the Word of God it is however not literally the Word of God.

You cannot make this claim as YOU do not know if 'inspiration' is not how God talks to us.
Maybe speaking in a big, booming voice is NOT the natural method for God to speak and He only does it for our sake. Can you prove otherwise ?

Also, you really seem to belittle 'inspiration'....as tho its not quite as believable as that booming voice.

 

[follower of Christ]

I you want to go all conspiracy thoery I guess so, personally I'm not going to fall in line with another man's interpetation when it goes against all forms of reason and logic.

So if I say that the Word is WITH God and IS God, and this Word is Jesus Christ and then I prove it with John 1 and the very clear context there that shows just that.....it is against all forms of reason an logic that I conclude just that if you disagree ?

umm...I don't know, maybe to put faith in God rather than the bible.

Which god are you talking about ?
Define Him...point Him out....describe Him.
You realize the moment you run to the bible to do so that youve undermined your entire argument, right ?

 

[seekandlisten]

"Is the bible our foundation for Gods truth ?" No, Christ is the foundation for God's Truth.

Im fairly certain that, given the context of my statement, that it can be assumed that Im speaking about WRITTEN foundation ;)
I think we all know who Christ is

I believe it's written on our hearts.

"What role does the bible play in the life of the believer ?"Personal learning, guidance, rebuke, and whatever God chooses to reveal through it.

How can we rebuke someone else if we dont know what is inspired...what is Gods 'literal' word....and what isnt ?
All that can happen when we dont see the bible AS Gods perfect word, His infallible truth, is that someone can just say they dont think the part being used to rebuke them either is inspired or they can insist that the correcting parties 'interpretation' is inaccurate....or even worse, accuse the interpreters themselves of being wrong as we've seen mentioned in this forum this past week.

If we cannot agree on absolutes then there is no truth to be learned between us as there is no absolute truth. Everything is subjective based on our whims.

What are you getting at here. We need something to point out sin?? Isn't that the Law of Moses? Sorry I don't focus on running around rebuking people for things that are hinted at. By the way I'm not exactly sure what we are arguing here as this is more along the lines of certain opinions as I don't know what your beliefs are and you don't know mine.

 

[seekandlisten]

This part gets taken to all sorts of levels.

Its pretty clear, however.
I doubt it was said just so we could ignore it Agree
[quote:1q6wjxb4] God did not literally speak the words written in the bible.

Didnt He ?No
Does God have a literal 'mouth' with lips and a fleshly tongue ?No
How does God 'talk' ?Through the Holy Spirit
[quote:1q6wjxb4] God did 'inspire' the men that wrote the bible and His Word is contained in the bible.

And maybe that is Gods language...how that which is SPIRIT 'speaks' to that which is fleshly.
I think youre taking a few liberties with logic and reason here, S How so?

'All Scripture' does not refer to the canonized bible as that didn't happen yet.

So youre saying that God is not all knowing who knew what He WOULD inspire very shortly ?
I think some of us have a much more broad view of 'God' than that. I'm pretty sure my view of God is a lot more open minded then most

More or less the bible contains the Word of God it is however not literally the Word of God.

You cannot make this claim as YOU do not know if 'inspiration' is not how God talks to us.
Maybe speaking in a big, booming voice is NOT the natural method for God to speak and He only does it for our sake. Can you prove otherwise ?I'm not claiming otherwise

Also, you really seem to belittle 'inspiration'....as tho its not quite as believable as that booming voice.
[/quote:1q6wjxb4][/quote:1q6wjxb4]
It's the still small voice we should be listening too.