So what exactly is Biblical?

[Cappadocious]

Come on now. Your turn. It's tough as I don't generally use the term 'biblical'.

I was responding to the OP!

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I also believe the KJV to be the most accurate.

Really? Even more accurate than the manuscripts?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Hmmm would you say biblical would be truth through scripture though?

I'm thinking that's the implication of the word. But in reality the word is used rather subjectivity. I think when you see it used in a place like a forum the words 'to my understanding' should be read into it.

 

[fhansen]

Is it a literal word for word statement of what is written in the bible?

A understanding of the context of the entire chapter/book/entire Writ?

Or various degrees of in-between?

Just a questioning thought, since arguments always seem to be centered around what is biblical and what is not.

It's whatever the author intended by his words.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

It's whatever the author intended by his words.

There is a good bit of wisdom in that statement.

 

[Radagast]

Whatever someone thinks it is. In protestant thought each man is an island and can determine for himself what is and is not Biblical

That's not true. Protestant denominations frown on individual interpretations that contradict the historic Creeds and Confessions.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

That's not true. Protestant denominations frown on individual interpretations that contradict the historic Creeds and Confessions.

Some protestant denominations don't even know there is a Creed. Protestant is a very broad term. I take it from your statement that you are not of the Word of Faith denomination.

 

[Radagast]

Some protestant denominations don't even know there is a Creed. Protestant is a very broad term. I take it from your statement that you are not of the Word of Faith denomination.

Well, "Word of Faith" is a loose movement, not a denomination.

The denominations I'm aware of accept several Creeds (usually the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian) and generally have one or more Confessions that spell things out in more detail. For example:

Anglican -- 39 Articles
Baptist -- various Baptist Confessions (see Wikipedia's list)
Lutheran -- Augsburg Confession
Methodist -- an edited version of the 39 Articles
Presbyterian -- Westminster Confession
Reformed -- Belgic Confession

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's not true. Protestant denominations frown on individual interpretations that contradict the historic Creeds and Confessions.

Some protestant denominations don't even know there is a Creed. Protestant is a very broad term. I take it from your statement that you are not of the Word of Faith denomination.

Both statements are true.

Because there ultimately is no such thing as "Protestantism", there is instead a number of Protestantisms.

Those churches which trace themselves to the [Magisterial] Reformation (e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc) are very much devoted to keeping the integrity of the faith as confessed in the Creeds, and the Creeds are necessary.

But there are a number of Protestantisms that aren't, arguably most today.

Particularly those traditions which have arisen out of the American Revivalist and Charismatic traditions which place a stronger emphasis on personal conversion and personal spiritual experience; where reading and understanding Scripture isn't the corporate work of the Church with feet firmly planted in the confession, and tradition of the historic, catholic faith but instead an individualistic task with the idea that somehow God regularly and supernaturally intervenes through the Holy Spirit to grant the individual the proper understanding, with or without any necessary concern for appropriate context. And without necessary care for how the great cloud of witnesses have, historically, approached and understood the Written Word.

Protestantisms. There is no real such thing as "Protestantism".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

Because there ultimately is no such thing as "Protestantism", there is instead a number of Protestantisms.

No doubt, although I stand by my carefully worded sentence.

By and large, a Protestant denomination has a Confession or Creed. Various non-denominational movements may not.

 

[seeingeyes]

But you're wrong because it's not Biblical

"The word of the Lord Almighty came to me." (Zech 8:18) Scriptures say so.

 

[James Is Back]

"The word of the Lord Almighty came to me." (Zech 8:18) Scriptures say so.

When than I guess that applies to me as well so there

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

We seem to cherry pick verses to justify injustices. Wars, social inequalities, greed, or the blanket sin of omission are good examples. Taking verses out of context is the biggest crime of modern interpretation. So, this is why I asked, "What is biblical?"

The worst crime of interpretation is the abuse of the OT for examples. Ancient Israel is not a prime example for what it means to be a loyal to God. They fail time and time again, which is why God had a messiah planned from the beginning.

 

[Targaryen]

Is it a literal word for word statement of what is written in the bible?

A understanding of the context of the entire chapter/book/entire Writ?

Or various degrees of in-between?

Just a questioning thought, since arguments always seem to be centered around what is biblical and what is not.

I'd say it's understanding the context and meaning of the writ in question and applying it to current factors one faces, not discounting reason and awareness of the world around them.

 

[seeingeyes]

When than I guess that applies to me as well so there

"Behold, I have prepared my case; I know that I shall be in the right." (Job 13:18)

 

[hedrick]

Is it a literal word for word statement of what is written in the bible?

A understanding of the context of the entire chapter/book/entire Writ?

Or various degrees of in-between?

Just a questioning thought, since arguments always seem to be centered around what is biblical and what is not.

Pretty much everyone agrees that something is Biblical when it’s in accordance with what the Bible teaches. But beyond that, there’s no agreement, as you’ve seen.

Even the reason there’s no agreement is debatable. I’d say it’s partly because of the nature of the Bible, partly because of our separation from it in time and culture, and partly because people read it through the eyes of their own traditions, which vary a good deal.

But others have a faith commitment to the idea that the Bible is clear, and that time and culture are no barrier. They tend to be more inclined to think that everyone other than them is biased or even unfaithful. Or they are committed to the concept that the Bible is part of their tradition, and needs to be read in accordance with it.

My preference is to separate understanding what it says as much as possible from our own faith, though in the long run for Protestants at least a change in that understanding is going to change our faith. But that means seeing it as secular scholars see it, which bothers many Christians. Still, I think the closest we’ve come to an unbiased understanding (and I admit that it’s far from perfect) is the product of a community that is largely ecumenical and non-religious, using Enlightenment methods to the extent that it’s reasonable for this kind of material. The very fact that Protestants, Catholics and agnostics all have pretty similar understandings of what Jesus, Paul, etc, were talking about makes this effort look a lot more promising than those that somehow always find that Scripture is saying what they’ve already believed anyway.

 

[James Is Back]

But is this thread Biblical

 

[shturt678s]

Is it a literal word for word statement of what is written in the bible?

A understanding of the context of the entire chapter/book/entire Writ?

Or various degrees of in-between?

Just a questioning thought, since arguments always seem to be centered around what is biblical and what is not.

The adjective "Biblical" paints a broad picture, however decades ago found out that if one posits that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word of God resulting in anything "Biblical" is the former, the money and Christians will flock in and you'll have a large following quickly with lots of brothers and sisters in Christ.

On the other side of the coin if Bibles are translations and extremely interpretive just by default by being translations then anything "Biblical" may not necessarily be inerrant, infallible, and inspired resulting in no following, no money, and all your brothers and sisters in Christ quickly disappear for some reason.

Don't pay that much attention, old Jack just thinking out loud again...never did run with the majority, secure in the crowd routine...did win a most unpopular Christian contest one time.

btw this thread is as Biblical as it gets.

 

[James Is Back]

Who is old Jack anyway? I keep hearing that name pop up a few times.

 

[BobRyan]

Is it a literal word for word statement of what is written in the bible?

A understanding of the context of the entire chapter/book/entire Writ?

Or various degrees of in-between?

Just a questioning thought, since arguments always seem to be centered around what is biblical and what is not.

Those who merely want to "bend the Bible" will argue that it is "literal where their liberal views will allow it" and it is "Symbolic' - everywhere else.

Those who want to let the Bible interpret the Bible will allow it to be literal except when an obvious symbol is in use.

For I example "I am the vine you are the branches" - spoken by literal Christ to literal followers of Christ - but using symbols.

in Christ,

Bob