The Bible

[Nomad]

ASPEN SAYS; The majority of Christians believe the Bible is an inspired document, however, many disagree on which perspective the Bible is written from. So is the Bible written from God's perspective or Human perspective? When you read the Bible is it human's commentary on God or the other way around? I strongly believe the Bible is inspired, but written by human hand and therefore limited by human perspective. Every word in the Bible is supposed to be there, however the meaning can only be captured in broad strokes because it is filtered through human culture and understanding of God's revelation.

Agree or disagree.

BY SPOT ON, I MEAN THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ASPEN HAS THE CLEAREST PERSPECTIVE OF THE BIBLE.

Aspen's questions and view of Scripture are designed to allow Aspen to 'spiritualize' or 'mythologize' those things in Scripture that Aspen doesn't like. It's that plain and that simple. Aspen is certainly not alone on this board in forcing Scripture to conform to his/her subjective personal preferences and presuppositions. Aspen's post has already been answered many times over. Scripture answers very clearly. Unfortunately, the Biblical answer has been given short shrift by those who take a low or sub-orthodox view of Scripture. But what do you expect from those who cherry-pick the Bible according to their own likes and dislikes?

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Does that sound like Scripture is limited by 'human perspective?'

 

[sniper762]

nomad, you say 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

does that ONLY apply to th e scriptures contained in the kjv bible?

note there was no kjv when timothy was written

what about the agnostic scriptures?

 

[TexUs]

nomad, you say 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

does that ONLY apply to th e scriptures contained in the kjv bible?

note there was no kjv when timothy was written

what about the agnostic scriptures?

Obviously he wasn't talking about agnostic scriptures

It applies to the scriptures the church regarded as scripture during that time. Peter references some of Paul's writings he had written so far at that time as Scripture. The church, that actually saw, and walked with, Christ- affirmed the teachings in other letters as accurate and regarded them as Scripture.
Not to say ALL of the writings of the Apostles are Scripture, but when in "Speak for Christ" mode, the Apostles writings were quickly regarded as such. Within the first century, we actually had a very similar (save for a book or two) canonization of the Bible we have today, contrary to what Catholics like to teach you that they assembled the Bible as it was today. And within two hundred years we had the Bible as it exists today.
Many and most(?) of the letters in the NT had the Apostles claiming to write as a command of the Lord or as inspiration.

 

[Nomad]

nomad, you say 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

does that ONLY apply to th e scriptures contained in the kjv bible?

note there was no kjv when timothy was written

what about the agnostic scriptures?

Oh boy, here we go. What does the KJV have to do with this?

What in the world are agnostic scriptures? Do you mean gnostic writings? There is no such thing as 'agnostic' scriptures.

 

[sniper762]

Obviously he wasn't talking about agnostic scriptures

It applies to the scriptures the church regarded as scripture during that time. Peter references some of Paul's writings he had written so far at that time as Scripture. The church, that actually saw, and walked with, Christ- affirmed the teachings in other letters as accurate and regarded them as Scripture.
Not to say ALL of the writings of the Apostles are Scripture, but when in "Speak for Christ" mode, the Apostles writings were quickly regarded as such. Within the first century, we actually had a very similar (save for a book or two) canonization of the Bible we have today, contrary to what Catholics like to teach you that they assembled the Bible as it was today. And within two hundred years we had the Bible as it exists today.
Many and most(?) of the letters in the NT had the Apostles claiming to write as a command of the Lord or as inspiration.

the original kjv bible included several of the agnostic books. they were later removed. were the ot scriptures not concidered as scripture during the time timothy was written?

 

[TexUs]

What in the world are agnostic scriptures? Do you mean gnostic writings? There is no such thing as 'agnostic' scriptures.

I think he means apocryphal books which shows you how much he knows about the subject... That's the assumption I ran with.

the original kjv bible included several of the agnostic books. they were later removed. were the ot scriptures not concidered as scripture during the time timothy was written?

They never considered them Scripture. They were included as an Appendix of reference material but they were in neither the OT nor NT cannons. Never considered Scripture.
In fact, while assembling the KJV and years before it was released, King James said these statements:


As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)...
...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?

Heck, even the Roman Catholic Church founding Fathers didn't even consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture but you'll see Catholics ignore this statement by Jerome:
As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.

 

[sniper762]

I think he means apocryphal books which shows you how much he knows about the subject... That's the assumption I ran with.


They never considered them Scripture. They were included as an Appendix of reference material but they were in neither the OT nor NT cannons. Never considered Scripture.
In fact, while assembling the KJV and years before it was released, King James said these statements:


As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)...
...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?

Heck, even the Roman Catholic Church founding Fathers didn't even consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture but you'll see Catholics ignore this statement by Jerome:
As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.

so i take it that those scriptures that were originally included in the bible but later removed; you, king james nor the pope recognize them as scripture? wow!, how devined. should i pray to you guys instead of god?

 

[Nomad]

I think he means apocryphal books which shows you how much he knows about the subject... That's the assumption I ran with.

After seeing his last post to you, I think you're right.

Excellent post btw. I would just add that the KJV was a product of the Church of England. The following excerpt from their 39 Articles of Faith should help add clarity to the question at hand.

[font="Verdana][size="2"]VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"]Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
[/size][/font][font="Verdana][size="2"]Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"]And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"]The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.[/size][/font]

​

[font="Verdana][size="2"]All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.[/size][/font]

The Church of England viewed the apocrypha as profitable to read, but not to establish doctrine and certainly not canonical.

so i take it that those scriptures that were originally included in the bible but later removed; you, king james nor the pope recognize them as scripture? wow!, how devined. should i pray to you guys instead of god?

No, they were not originally included and later removed. They were disputed throughout Church history because the Jews, who according to the Apostle Paul, were the 'custodians' of the OT Scriptures, never accepted the 'apocrypha' as Scripture. Sorry. You really should make a point of studying Biblical history before making such ridiculous accusations.

 

[TexUs]

so i take it that those scriptures that were originally included in the bible but later removed; you, king james nor the pope recognize them as scripture? wow!, how devined. should i pray to you guys instead of god?

They were never considered a part of the "Bible".
It's like saying the concordance or maps at the back of your Bible are now part of the Bible... They're index and reference and informational materials only- they aren't the Bible. This is the same way the Apocrypha was regarded.

As Nomad points out, the Jews never accepted them. The early church never accepted them.
It's an interesting topic how they survived, might be interesting to see how that was, but I suspect there were just enough people in some kind of Jewish sect that kept it alive long enough for the Roman Catholic Church to grab onto and ignorantly form doctrines around it.

Excellent post btw. I would just add that the KJV was a product of the Church of England. The following excerpt from their 39 Articles of Faith should help add clarity to the question at hand.

Yeah I almost quoted it but seemed like he had a special interest in King James so I figured I'd go straight from the horses mouth, LOL.
(and naturally I had to include a slight to the only denomination still holding onto these works).

 

[sniper762]

After seeing his last post to you, I think you're right.

Excellent post btw. I would just add that the KJV was a product of the Church of England. The following excerpt from their 39 Articles of Faith should help add clarity to the question at hand.



The Church of England viewed the apocrypha as profitable to read, but not to establish doctrine and certainly not canonical.



No, they were not originally included and later removed. They were disputed throughout Church history because the Jews, who according to the Apostle Paul, were the 'custodians' of the OT Scriptures, never accepted the 'apocrypha' as Scripture. Sorry. You really should make a point of studying Biblical history before making such ridiculous accusations.

they WERE included in the septuagent and the vulgate that preceeded the kjv and from which the original kjv was compiled from, as follows;

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[4] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.
The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

perhaps YOU should study a little more

 

[aspen]

And this is key and a huge pet peeve of mine which many people simply don't seem to understand.

Yes, you certainly seem to be peeved....


We need to STOP trying to put God on a human timeline, stop putting him in a BOX that we humans can understand.

So let's see. people are basically evil, so how would I even know how to create good rules for God to follow?.....Instead, I am merely holding God to His own standard of Goodness (no murder, not tempting us, loving His enemies) and you are calling that "human reasoning"? Seems to me that choosing to fit God into scripture, written by human hand, without taking into account God's goodness and mercy should be called 'human reasoning'.

The Bible says he's good and does no sin. So therefore, Sodom, the Flood, these things were good: and not sin. If he does it- it's good. Just because it doesn't fit our puny, limited, and flawed scope of what we consider good and bad to be (don't you think man has already screwed that up??) doesn't mean we apply that to God.

So you are redefining Good? to accommodation your small understanding of God? The fact is, your god cannot ever follow His own laws! This has nothing to do with me creating a law and demanding God to follow it - I am just assuming that a Good God would follow His own morality!

 

[Nomad]

they WERE included in the septuagent and the vulgate that preceeded the kjv and from which the original kjv was compiled from, as follows;

The earliest extant copies of the Septuagint come from the fourth century AD. None of these copies contain the same list of apocryphal/deuterocanonical books which only serves to demonstrate the in-fighting that took place over them. Once again, the 'custodians' of the OT Scriptures never accepted the apocryphal writings.

Jerome, who is responsible for the Vulgate, translated the apocrypha under duress. Like many before him, he recognized that the apocrypha was not canonical. Once again, this only serves to demonstrate the doubt that lingered around the apocryphal writings throughout Church history.

 

[tomwebster]

nomad, you say 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

does that ONLY apply to th e scriptures contained in the kjv bible?

note there was no kjv when timothy was written

what about the agnostic scriptures?

No, it applies to Scripture as given to us by God in the original autographs. What about the gnostic works, they are not Scripture. The New Testament was written in every day Greek.

 

[aspen]

Aspen's questions and view of Scripture are designed to allow Aspen to 'spiritualize' or 'mythologize' those things in Scripture that Aspen doesn't like.

Wrong. I am filtering scripture through what I know to be true about God's nature; mercy. compassion, love, and forgiveness. It has nothing to do with what I like or do not like. It would appear that you are filtering scripture through God's judgment, wrath, and sovereignty - I can understand why because the entire message of the OT was God's re-introduction to humanity through a tough, desert nomad group of stiff-necked people who need to hear the truth about His sovereignty over, and over and over again. The fact is - I already got the message - God is sovereign now I am applying the mercy and compassion Jesus preached in the NT, which baffled the Pharisees.

It's that plain and that simple. Aspen is certainly not alone on this board in forcing Scripture to conform to his/her subjective personal preferences and presuppositions.

Mercy, compassion, love and forgiveness? How can these be my subjective personal preferences - I am basically evil - these are God's characteristics and commands for us to live by.

Aspen's post has already been answered many times over. Scripture answers very clearly.

My posts have been responded to - but never answered. It is sort of like I am asking for ice cubes and you keep giving me water and calling them ice cubes - technically you are right, but you've missed the transformation and therefore the whole point.

Unfortunately, the Biblical answer has been given short shrift by those who take a low or sub-orthodox view of Scripture. But what do you expect from those who cherry-pick the Bible according to their own likes and dislikes?

You refuse to see that you are compromising God's character with your ends justifying the means ethical code.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Does that sound like Scripture is limited by 'human perspective?'

So the Book of Revelation is going to involve a giant beast rising out of the sea?

 

[TexUs]

So let's see. people are basically evil, so how would I even know how to create good rules for God to follow?.....Instead, I am merely holding God to His own standard of Goodness (no murder, not tempting us, loving His enemies)

He's done all that. All of it. Sodom wasn't murder, it was righteous judgement. Just as is the state killing someone for crimes: it's done in righteous judgement, not premeditated malice.


As far as loving your enemies, please read context. Why did he tell us this?
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. [sup]19[/sup] Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.


He tells US to love our enemies. HE is the judge, he says LEAVE IT TO HIM. Love our enemies, he'll sort them out.

So you are redefining Good? to accommodation your small understanding of God?

I might be redefining YOUR definition of good.
The fact is, the Bible defines good as anything that God does (James), and even Christ said God is Good, this is where we get the word God from.


You are putting YOUR definition of good in there, plain and simple.
It's this easy: Anything God does is good. Let it be at that instead of trying to define and twist God into something of your own making.

they WERE included in the septuagent and the vulgate that preceeded the kjv and from which the original kjv was compiled from, as follows;

What you don't seem to understand is that yes, it was in there but no, it was not Scripture.

 

[sniper762]

He's done all that. All of it. Sodom wasn't murder, it was righteous judgement. Just as is the state killing someone for crimes: it's done in righteous judgement, not premeditated malice.


As far as loving your enemies, please read context. Why did he tell us this?
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. [sup]19[/sup] Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.


He tells US to love our enemies. HE is the judge, he says LEAVE IT TO HIM. Love our enemies, he'll sort them out.





I might be redefining YOUR definition of good.
The fact is, the Bible defines good as anything that God does (James), and even Christ said God is Good, this is where we get the word God from.


You are putting YOUR definition of good in there, plain and simple.
It's this easy: Anything God does is good. Let it be at that instead of trying to define and twist God into something of your own making.


What you don't seem to understand is that yes, it was in there but no, it was not Scripture.

if it was written in the bible, it was just as much scripture as the rest of it.

 

[TexUs]

if it was written in the bible, it was just as much scripture as the rest of it.

So the colorful maps in the back are now scripture?
The footnotes are scripture?
The concordance is scripture?
What about the articles in it explaining each book?
What about the articles written by folks alive today explaining certain topics?
What about the copyright page in the front?
If my name has been engraved inside the cover, am I now a Biblical figure?

 

[sniper762]

So the colorful maps in the back are now scripture?
The footnotes are scripture?
The concordance is scripture?
What about the articles in it explaining each book?
What about the articles written by folks alive today explaining certain topics?
What about the copyright page in the front?
If my name has been engraved inside the cover, am I now a Biblical figure?

now your trying to be cute. if you are serious, maybe ignorant

 

[TexUs]

now your trying to be cute. if you are serious, maybe ignorant

I'm dead serious. That's all written in my Bible, so according to your statement, it's Scripture:

if it was written in the bible, it was just as much scripture as the rest of it.

 

[aspen]

He's done all that. All of it. Sodom wasn't murder, it was righteous judgement. Just as is the state killing someone for crimes: it's done in righteous judgement, not premeditated malice.

As far as loving your enemies, please read context. Why did he tell us this?
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. [sup]19[/sup] Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

He tells US to love our enemies. HE is the judge, he says LEAVE IT TO HIM. Love our enemies, he'll sort them out.



I might be redefining YOUR definition of good.
The fact is, the Bible defines good as anything that God does (James), and even Christ said God is Good, this is where we get the word God from.

You are putting YOUR definition of good in there, plain and simple.
It's this easy: Anything God does is good. Let it be at that instead of trying to define and twist God into something of your own making.

What you don't seem to understand is that yes, it was in there but no, it was not Scripture.

Ends justifying the means......

Not my God




.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................


You may as well take the maps in the back of the Bible to be scripture if take the second half of Mark 16 as inspired - yet it is presented in every Protestant Bible as if it were inspired.