'The Bible tells me so' is wrong

[Mike]

Please move on, guys. Do not respond to this here. If you care to discuss, you may start a conversation in the TWITS Forum.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Yes, man can not come to Christ unless the father draws him. But the Bible is not the Father, it is writing the God had written. So just a you might write a book the book is still not you. You are alive, but a book is not. A book might reflect what you thought and give us an indication of how you might thing, but a book does not think.

So it is we must know God and that is accomplish by listening to what He personally tells you.

So you statement "If you don't know the bible (The Word), you will not know Christ is wrong. Abraham did not know the Bible but he knew the Lord, as recorded in the Scriptures, thus proving you wrong.

Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not fear Abram, I am a shield to you......

Gen 15:6 Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

There was no Bible or Scriptures written down at that point, but the word of Lord came and spoke to Abram. Abram believe that it was God speaking to him and God counted that belief as righteousness to Abram. And Paul explain that the off spring of Abraham. So it is great to write "But salvation and born again believers are created by our Lord God and Savior, Amen", but if you don't know Jesus Christ as the Word of God (meaning He speaks to us just like Abram) and not just that He left a book who do you know?

Today we call both the Scriptures (because people wrote down what the Lord told them) and Jesus Christ (because He will personally talk to us) "The Word of God". But we preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified, even because of Jews that wanted it, even though they knew the Scriptures.

Gal 3:22 But the Scriptures has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

We are not believing in the Scriptures, we are believing in Jesus Christ, the word of the Lord who came to Abram saying.....

Strange Fire!

 

[Free]

I wrote:"
If we are indeed a Christian, we must believe that the Christian Bible is from God. He inspired it!

However to think that Christianity is based on the history that is recorded in the Scriptures is just wrong!!!"

And you responded with:

As was pointed out, these two statements stand in contradiction. Do you think that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened? Do you believe that the Fall of man was literal?

Do you not understand that Christianity is based upon Jesus Christ? And Jesus Christ is not the Scriptures!!

Now you ask me if I think the resurrection actual happened? I was wonder if you thought the resurrection actually happened!

I believe it happened because Jesus Christ talks to me via the Holy Spirit. If you truly believe it happened how come you point to history instead of your current relationship with the Lord?

My questions were rhetorical and were intended to get you to think about what you are saying. Jesus's life, ministry, death, and resurrection are all historical fact. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15 that if Jesus didn't rise again, then our faith is meaningless, we are lost in our sins, and we are to be the most pitied among man. Our faith then, is based on the historical fact that Jesus rose again.

And as for me thinking the Fall of man was literal: I don't think Adam fell and stubbed his nose! Adam was thrown out of the garden, it was not a literal fall, but a separation occurred....If you did you should know that Christianity is based on Christ, not the Scriptures.

What I asked had nothing to do with whether or not "Adam fell and stubbed his nose." "The Fall," as it is capitalized and in the context of a discussion such as this, obviously refers to man's rebellion against God and the loss of that relationship. Therefore, asking if you believe it is literal, is to simply ask if you believe such a rebellion and separation actually occurred. This is another historical fact and the one that is the whole reason for Jesus's life, death, and resurrection.

Why should one trust in Christ for salvation if they don't believe they are in need of saving?

 

[Free]

I wrote: "
"Christianity is based up the reality of God, meaning the reality of Jesus Christ. That is simply to say we can get to know Jesus Christ, the Word of God!!!

So Christianity is based upon Christ, and that is what the Bible tells us!!"

You wrote:

What do you mean by "God"? Who do you say that Jesus is? What do you mean by "the Word of God"?

I'm not sure how you don't get my meaning. But John put it like this:

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Jesus Christ is the Word, He was with God and He was God. If you can understand that verse you should be able to understand me.

Rev 19:20 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood and His name is called The Word of God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. But we also call the Scriptures the Word of God. Jesus is called the Word because He speaks to us. The Scriptures are called the Word of God because He spoke to others and they wrote down what He said to them, and God preserved those writing to teach us from. But the Scriptures are not Jesus.

Gal 3:23 But the Scriptures has shut up everyone under sin so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those that believe.

So if you lift up your Bible and say it is the Word of God understand, but we preach Jesus Christ and He is not the Scriptures, but His name is The Word of God. So it is that Christianity is based upon knowing Jesus Christ, not knowing your Bible! Of course if you know Jesus Christ you will know that if you have a Bible He will ask you to read it. But if you are reading it and don't know Jesus Christ, then you have a problem.

Again, my questions were rhetorical to get you to think about what you are claiming. There are many different meanings "God" out there and many different ideas of who Jesus is. The point is that apart from the historicity written in the Bible, we have no idea who God is, who Jesus is, what the "Word of God" is, why we are here, why we are in such a messy state, what hope there is to get out of this state, or why any of that even matters.

You argue that "to think that Christianity is based on the history that is recorded in the Scriptures is just wrong," but fail to realize that without the history recorded in Scripture, we would have no Christianity; there would be no salvation. So your own argument falls apart as you must argue back to the history recorded in Scripture as the basis for your Christian beliefs.

 

[smaller]

The Lord once told me, "There are two mistakes you can make. One is to not believe the Bible and the other is to not believe the Bible is right."

If you think that the Bible is not from God and thus is not needed, it is a mistake. But another mistake you can make is to think the Bible is from God but to think you do not have to listen to our Lord Jesus Christ via the Spirit of God like the Bible clear tells us.

That 'word of God' is not the Bible, it is Jesus Christ talking to you via the Holy Spirit. And He is going to tell you to "Read Your Bible", at least that was what I heard from Him.

I have wrote sooo much, but let me give a good example. In the mornings I sit and talk with Him. He has asked me to always have a Bible available at that time and we usually go over it, but not always. The other day He asked me to walk to the donut shop with Him. He started talking about being the friend of God. He ask me to consider how He felt. He then gave an example and asked me, "Karl, if you had a king in a starry castle that rule everyday a mighty empire, and one morning this king meet up with a friend and slipped unnoticed out of the castle to walk to the donut shop, don't you think that might be the best part of the kings day?"

Jesus is the Lord of lords and commands all things, but often His best times are simply walking and talking to you as His friend. We then talked about my son's soccer team. And when I got to the donut shop he told me, "Karl, this is why I need you to preach Me as the Word of God. I don't just want to command the Kingdom of God, I want to walk with my friends."

If someone doesn't know Jesus Christ like that, they might want to work on their relationship with Him. And if someone is thinking Christianity is based on the Bible, could it be that they don't know Him like that? Abraham was the friend of God and they ate together. We read that in the Bible, so how is it we don't think it is supposed to be like that? Did we think the Bible is actually right?

I will sympathize with the above to a certain extent, having lived a good deal of my life as a "charismatic" christian who put a great deal of faith in such dialogs above.

But, honestly and mentally healthily one day, it DID occur to me that I was actually having an imaginary conversation with myself. And that was closer to the truth. I had perhaps conjured up some little imaginary friend in my own head, with whom I was having conversations, thinking it was God. After all, how would I really know? Having donuts and coffee with God in Christ?

Eventually I had to concede to the fact that IF I wanted to have "conversation" with God, I'd have to deal with God on His Terms, which are His Written Words. And by them, THEN I would have a measure of "how" God Lives in me, and "interacts" with me. Not with my imaginary little friend in my head.

And at that point, I had quite a different relationship with God, because there were quite a few things in His Recorded Word that I actually hadn't paid much attentions to as close as I thought I had. I learned to listen to the "hard stuff." The stuff my flesh really didn't care to hear, but was there to hear all along. I could overcome my imaginary little friend in my head with my own reasonings, making it say whatever I wanted to hear, but I could NOT manipulate what was written.

IF the Word abides in us, then it is that Word which is already available for us to absorb. Will the little voices in my head, with whom I had conversations prior, be that honest with me? Probably not. I discarded my imaginary little friend for the deceiver he was.

Paul received ALL of his "revelation" from God in Christ directly from Gods Words in the O.T. and from the Mouth of Jesus, speaking in accord with His Own Prior Words. Paul taught Jesus from the Word of God, written in the law and the prophets.

Acts 28:23
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

Jesus Himself, post resurrecting TAUGHT the disciples He engaged on the road to Emmaus, from the law and the prophets, which gives us some idea the IMPORTANCE that He put upon His Own Words. Luke 24.

IF there is any "vivification" of the Spirit with any believer, it is going to come from "vivification" of what is already set to print.

I am not all that interested in the "vivifications" of my own imaginations.

Now, if we want the "TOUCH" of the Spirit, try this out. It really does work:

When we do good, when we do what is right, does our heart not "burn" within us? That is the TOUCH of God upon our hearts. There is no WORD that can touch us in this way, and it requires no little imaginary conversation in our heads from God to do right. We can "live and move" with what we see in front of us, everyday, in this matter.

I don't need the imaginary little conversation in my head with God, to tell me to help a little old lady cross the street or to pat me on the back afterwards, telling me "I dun good." I feel Him, in my heart, when I do so, as "warmth." That is The Spirit of Christ, in us. No Words required.

I learned to distrust the imaginary conversations. When I do engage in conversations with God, they are much different than having a nice little chat with God in Christ over coffee and donuts. I ask Him to SHOW ME, with my own eyes, what He wants me to do. And those kinds of exchanges usually get answers that I can see with my own eyes, that didn't need any imaginary conversations.

I moved away from all the believers I used to know that had imaginary conversations with God because very few of them were really all that accurate to the scriptures, and I found their speakings all over the map, and not in accord with the scriptures. In short, most of them had idols of their own makings. And I came to see their methodology as idol worship.

IF I never again heard "God told me this today about you" from one of these clowns, I'd be content. God didn't tell them squat.

That all being said, I have had prophecy that was spot dead on direct hit, that I DID receive, where those who delivered it did not have a clue about what they said, or why they said it. Only I knew, because it was my own perception, in faith, being confirmed as well. That is called "confirmation" Word, that only a receiver would understand.

When we observe Agabus, the prophet in Acts, speaking to Paul, the other believers begged Paul not to go to Jerusalem, but PAUL took that same Word as confirmation to go, because God had already told him, through Ananias, where he was heading and how:

Acts 9:
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

I thank God for Paul, and his writings, his life, his sufferings, his recording of revealings, amplified by what was already written. Were it not for them, I would have never made it. I needed Paul's written Word. It is "from God in Christ" for REAL.

 

[OzSpen]

My questions were rhetorical and were intended to get you to think about what you are saying. Jesus's life, ministry, death, and resurrection are all historical fact. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15 that if Jesus didn't rise again, then our faith is meaningless, we are lost in our sins, and we are to be the most pitied among man. Our faith then, is based on the historical fact that Jesus rose again.

What I asked had nothing to do with whether or not "Adam fell and stubbed his nose." "The Fall," as it is capitalized and in the context of a discussion such as this, obviously refers to man's rebellion against God and the loss of that relationship. Therefore, asking if you believe it is literal, is to simply ask if you believe such a rebellion and separation actually occurred. This is another historical fact and the one that is the whole reason for Jesus's life, death, and resurrection.

Why should one trust in Christ for salvation if they don't believe they are in need of saving?

Well said, Free. The Bible is replete with history in both OT and NT. There have been excellent books written on the reliability of the OT and NT, using history and archaeology, to demonstrate such.

Of course there are many spiritual dimensions, but without the historical narrative there would not be bones on which to draw out spiritual application.

This morning (it's Saturday at 3.59pm as I write) I studied a couple of the compassion Scriptures of the OT.

We are taught in Psalm 103:8 (NLT), ‘The Lord is compassionate and merciful, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love’. Exodus 33:19 (NLT) states, ‘The Lord replied [to Moses], “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will call out my name, Yahweh,[a] before you. For I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose’.

So there's the teaching aspect of compassion and mercy from a Psalm and Exodus. Now for an example of compassion in action:

2 Kings 13:1-6 (NLT), ‘Jehoahaz son of Jehu began to rule over Israel in the twenty-third year of King Joash’s reign in Judah. He reigned in Samaria seventeen years. 2 But he did what was evil in the Lord’s sight. He followed the example of Jeroboam son of Nebat, continuing the sins that Jeroboam had led Israel to commit. 3 So the Lord was very angry with Israel, and he allowed King Hazael of Aram and his son Ben-hadad to defeat them repeatedly.

4 Then Jehoahaz prayed for the Lord’s help, and the Lord heard his prayer, for he could see how severely the king of Aram was oppressing Israel. 5 So the Lord provided someone to rescue the Israelites from the tyranny of the Arameans. Then Israel lived in safety again as they had in former days.

6 But they continued to sin, following the evil example of Jeroboam. They also allowed the Asherah pole in Samaria to remain standing’.

The Bible tells me so that the Lord God is the God of compassion and mercy and it also demonstrates an example of how he did that.
​

Oz

 

[Douglas Summers]

Douglas,

What would be your definition of history? What is it? You say that the Bible 'is not a book of history', hence my need for clarification on your definition.

Oz

The Bible is a witness of God, who He is (by the etymology of His titles or names). Of His creative power, His dealings and covenants with man, His calling out of Israel through our father of faith in Abraham. Other nations being mentioned as they touch Israel. The Church, the Gentile and the Jew. His purpose in all things. The End and the New Beginning. While it has God's calling and dealings with Israel. You can call it the History of Israel, But God is not done with Israel, the Church or the Gentile. But it is not a history book in itself . To look at the Bible as a history book is to turn The Holy Scriptures in to a Academia reference book, as K2CHRIST seems to reference the Bible to. Yes, it has History, but it is not meant to be a history book,

 

[OzSpen]

The Bible is a witness of God, who He is (by the etymology of His titles or names). Of His creative power, His dealings and covenants with man, His calling out of Israel through our father of faith in Abraham. Other nations being mentioned as they touch Israel. The Church, the Gentile and the Jew. His purpose in all things. The End and the New Beginning. While it has God's calling and dealings with Israel. You can call it the History of Israel, But God is not done with Israel, the Church or the Gentile. But it is not a history book in itself . To look at the Bible as a history book is to turn The Holy Scriptures in to a Academia reference book, as K2CHRIST seems to reference the Bible to. Yes, it has History, but it is not meant to be a history book,

I asked for your definition of history. This information that you have provided does not describe your definition of history.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I will sympathize with the above to a certain extent, having lived a good deal of my life as a "charismatic" christian who put a great deal of faith in such dialogs above.

But, honestly and mentally healthily one day, it DID occur to me that I was actually having an imaginary conversation with myself. And that was closer to the truth. I had perhaps conjured up some little imaginary friend in my own head, with whom I was having conversations, thinking it was God. After all, how would I really know? Having donuts and coffee with God in Christ?

Eventually I had to concede to the fact that IF I wanted to have "conversation" with God, I'd have to deal with God on His Terms, which are His Written Words. And by them, THEN I would have a measure of "how" God Lives in me, and "interacts" with me. Not with my imaginary little friend in my head.

And at that point, I had quite a different relationship with God, because there were quite a few things in His Recorded Word that I actually hadn't paid much attentions to as close as I thought I had. I learned to listen to the "hard stuff." The stuff my flesh really didn't care to hear, but was there to hear all along. I could overcome my imaginary little friend in my head with my own reasonings, making it say whatever I wanted to hear, but I could NOT manipulate what was written.

IF the Word abides in us, then it is that Word which is already available for us to absorb. Will the little voices in my head, with whom I had conversations prior, be that honest with me? Probably not. I discarded my imaginary little friend for the deceiver he was.

Paul received ALL of his "revelation" from God in Christ directly from Gods Words in the O.T. and from the Mouth of Jesus, speaking in accord with His Own Prior Words. Paul taught Jesus from the Word of God, written in the law and the prophets.

Acts 28:23
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

Jesus Himself, post resurrecting TAUGHT the disciples He engaged on the road to Emmaus, from the law and the prophets, which gives us some idea the IMPORTANCE that He put upon His Own Words. Luke 24.

IF there is any "vivification" of the Spirit with any believer, it is going to come from "vivification" of what is already set to print.

I am not all that interested in the "vivifications" of my own imaginations.

Now, if we want the "TOUCH" of the Spirit, try this out. It really does work:

When we do good, when we do what is right, does our heart not "burn" within us? That is the TOUCH of God upon our hearts. There is no WORD that can touch us in this way, and it requires no little imaginary conversation in our heads from God to do right. We can "live and move" with what we see in front of us, everyday, in this matter.

I don't need the imaginary little conversation in my head with God, to tell me to help a little old lady cross the street or to pat me on the back afterwards, telling me "I dun good." I feel Him, in my heart, when I do so, as "warmth." That is The Spirit of Christ, in us. No Words required.

I learned to distrust the imaginary conversations. When I do engage in conversations with God, they are much different than having a nice little chat with God in Christ over coffee and donuts. I ask Him to SHOW ME, with my own eyes, what He wants me to do. And those kinds of exchanges usually get answers that I can see with my own eyes, that didn't need any imaginary conversations.

I moved away from all the believers I used to know that had imaginary conversations with God because very few of them were really all that accurate to the scriptures, and I found their speakings all over the map, and not in accord with the scriptures. In short, most of them had idols of their own makings. And I came to see their methodology as idol worship.

IF I never again heard "God told me this today about you" from one of these clowns, I'd be content. God didn't tell them squat.

That all being said, I have had prophecy that was spot dead on direct hit, that I DID receive, where those who delivered it did not have a clue about what they said, or why they said it. Only I knew, because it was my own perception, in faith, being confirmed as well. That is called "confirmation" Word, that only a receiver would understand.

When we observe Agabus, the prophet in Acts, speaking to Paul, the other believers begged Paul not to go to Jerusalem, but PAUL took that same Word as confirmation to go, because God had already told him, through Ananias, where he was heading and how:

Acts 9:
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

I thank God for Paul, and his writings, his life, his sufferings, his recording of revealings, amplified by what was already written. Were it not for them, I would have never made it. I needed Paul's written Word. It is "from God in Christ" for REAL.

It would appear we disagree here. The question that rears it's head is, "How do these conversations take place?" Ad the answer is involved.

I go to God, most of the time, and speak my concerns to Him and yep, sometimes my heart burns and that is enough but more often somebody says something that is the answer I was looking for. They will know nothing of the issue but they speak the answer and when I check scripture, it agrees with what God has written.

In all of my life, I admit it, God has spoken just seven words into my life and that was the chastisement of me, the atheist. But God does still speak. The problem is the Bible, the written Word of God is, until Jesus returns, the Final Court of Arbitration and people are too lazy to spend fifteen minutes a day to read it through and most of the ones that have were not seeking God or His Wisdom.

 

[th1b.taylor]

The Bible is a witness of God, who He is (by the etymology of His titles or names). Of His creative power, His dealings and covenants with man, His calling out of Israel through our father of faith in Abraham. Other nations being mentioned as they touch Israel. The Church, the Gentile and the Jew. His purpose in all things. The End and the New Beginning. While it has God's calling and dealings with Israel. You can call it the History of Israel, But God is not done with Israel, the Church or the Gentile. But it is not a history book in itself . To look at the Bible as a history book is to turn The Holy Scriptures in to a Academia reference book, as K2CHRIST seems to reference the Bible to. Yes, it has History, but it is not meant to be a history book,

The Bible is all you have enumerated and it is a book of history, it is just all of it.

 

[smaller]

It would appear we disagree here. The question that rears it's head is, "How do these conversations take place?" Ad the answer is involved.

I go to God, most of the time, and speak my concerns to Him and yep, sometimes my heart burns and that is enough but more often somebody says something that is the answer I was looking for. They will know nothing of the issue but they speak the answer and when I check scripture, it agrees with what God has written.

In all of my life, I admit it, God has spoken just seven words into my life and that was the chastisement of me, the atheist. But God does still speak. The problem is the Bible, the written Word of God is, until Jesus returns, the Final Court of Arbitration and people are too lazy to spend fifteen minutes a day to read it through and most of the ones that have were not seeking God or His Wisdom.

I am not denying that God speaks to any believer. In many ways. Some might think that they have coffee and donuts and conversations with Jesus, but I suspect, more often than not, a lot of such conversations are not with God whatsoever. So, how do we know? We compare any engagements of such sorts to His written Word, for accuracy.

In the charismatic sects I used to fellowship with the "God told me" stuff was in fact a form of one upmanship. And the great percentage of it was utter nonsense. It had nothing to do with "God speaking to them." The reality was a lot of these people were "channeling" wicked spirits who taught and practiced falsehoods and error.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am not denying that God speaks to any believer. In many ways. Some might think that they have coffee and donuts and conversations with Jesus, but I suspect, more often than not, a lot of such conversations are not with God whatsoever. So, how do we know? We compare any engagements of such sorts to His written Word, for accuracy.

In the charismatic sects I used to fellowship with the "God told me" stuff was in fact a form of one upmanship. And the great percentage of it was utter nonsense. It had nothing to do with "God speaking to them." The reality was a lot of these people were "channeling" wicked spirits who taught and practiced falsehoods and error.

Okay, point taken.

 

[Douglas Summers]

I will sympathize with the above to a certain extent, having lived a good deal of my life as a "charismatic" christian who put a great deal of faith in such dialogs above.

But, honestly and mentally healthily one day, it DID occur to me that I was actually having an imaginary conversation with myself. And that was closer to the truth.

That is called self willed worship. Rationalizing Scripture through the reasoning of himself. Answering his own questions and claiming they are of the Holy Spirit. Have you ever noticed how many say that the Spirit or God had shown or given them something. I have seen many a christian claim that God had taught them (on one particular and same doctrine), yet they all had different meanings. God is not the author of confusion.

 

[Douglas Summers]

I asked for your definition of history. This information that you have provided does not describe your definition of history.

Sorry, that is the only understanding I have for not calling the Bible a history book. But for a general understanding of the word History, is a record of the past.

 

[smaller]

I have seen many a christian claim that God had taught them (on one particular and same doctrine), yet they all had different meanings. God is not the author of confusion.

Yes, I have seen that, seriously, with hundreds if not thousands of believers that I have been exposed to in the charismatic realm. It's one of the main reasons I left off from those camps. A lot of them were just religiously deluded nutcases.

I wouldn't say however that God in Christ is not with them, in their faith. But how accurate they may be in their assessments of Gods supposed speakings is always subject to examinations for accuracy by written Word. So, to the Word, I flew. Found enough there to keep me busy and engaged therein, for decades. IF we can't listen and see what Word of God we already have, is there any uses in asking for more? There is plenty of hard fact WORD on the table to deal with.

Rev. 3:
8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

If we hear and see what we already have in writing, it is enough for any believers entire lifetime on earth.

But yes, God does still speak and call out, individually as well. This I can not credibly deny because I have "experienced" this myself. This latter type of direction I might call more along the lines of spiritual perceptions. And these perceivings we all actually engage in, daily, perpetually.

 

[Douglas Summers]

I wouldn't say however that God in Christ is not with them, in their faith. But how accurate they may be in their assessments of Gods supposed speakings is always subject to examinations for accuracy by written Word.

I will testify to this smaller, to be in union with the Spirit of God, while it is joyous in personal fellowship, it is also humbling and awing.

 

[Douglas Summers]

The Bible is all you have enumerated and it is a book of history, it is just all of it.

Hi Bill, Yes, it has the history of Israel if you want to call it that. But to be precise, it is the book of ages. It is the word of God in all of it's content, even to every word and letter. (that statement applies to the original writings only). Here is how I see the Bible. (Heb. 1:1) The final product is the very word of God written. The apostles emphasize this (2 Cor. 3:16, all or every) (2 Pet. 1:20-21) (1 Thess. 2:13) (1 Cor. 2:13). The Lord testifies the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). And shall be fulfilled to the smallest degree (Matt. 5:18). And because Christ is God (Heb. 1:3: Col. 2:9). He knew the Scriptures were true, inspired and authoritative.

The OT Scriptures are just as alive today as the NT Scriptures are. In all His word, history is not the Subject, but the example. In fact, the NT is the OT developing in actuality. (1 Cor. 10:1-15) The entire book of the Acts of the Apostles is all OT being fulfilled .
With God, there is no time. It is eternity past, eternity present and eternity future. That is how I regard the word of God.

Now the Apocryphal 1 & 2, That I would call a history book.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry, that is the only understanding I have for not calling the Bible a history book. But for a general understanding of the word History, is a record of the past.

Can that me an oral record of the past? For most of human history, there was a dominance of people who were illiterate. They could speak and remember. Is that record acceptable for history?

 

[Douglas Summers]

Can that me an oral record of the past? For most of human history, there was a dominance of people who were illiterate. They could speak and remember. Is that record acceptable for history?

I don't believe any oral witness of history or otherwise, unless It can be confirmed. In other words, I will listen and ponder the subject, but I do not take it as absolute like I do the Scriptures, but even the Scriptures are confirmed to the believer. For those who follow after the direction, and witness of men, become under bondage to men. I really do not believe anyone unless I
can find supporting witness.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't believe any oral witness of history or otherwise, unless It can be confirmed. In other words, I will listen and ponder the subject, but I do not take it as absolute like I do the Scriptures, but even the Scriptures are confirmed to the believer. For those who follow after the direction, and witness of men, become under bondage to men. I really do not believe anyone unless I
can find supporting witness.

I suggest you do more study on how the early church moved from oral tradition to written tradition and history. The early Christians had to hear Jesus orally as there was no other means available.

Could it be that you are thinking too much as a Western Christian of the 21st century?

Oz