An addendum to my post...Aaron11 said:Thanks for asking Derek,
-Yes, I view the bible as a man written book which is partially revealed by God. Some of the scripture that was in the bible is DEFINETLY revealed by God [Revelation for example(God revealed it in a dream)].
-Sometimeswe can know that parts of texts are DEFINETLY of God. For instance, when Luke quotes Jesus, that is Jesus speaking. Since Jesus was God, His words are God's words.
-I know that Genesis and some of the other early OT books were given to Moses by God (it says so). Those were obviously revealed by God.
-Paul writes in some of his letters, "Now, this is of God". And in other parts of the same letters he writes, "this is of my own accord" (not perfect quotes, but if you don't believe me that it says it, I will get perfect quotes for you). These phrases by Paul indicate to me that some of his writing was revealed to him by God and some of it was out of his own wisdom and knowledge of the gospel. Don't get me wrong, Paul obviously understood the gospel pretty well and even the non-revealed parts of his letters definetly should be given good consideration.
-Some books appear to claim other sources than inspiration and do not claim inspiration at all. For instance, the classic examples are Luke and Acts. Luke wrote those books as a historian wrote them. He sent them as letters to Theopholis to create an orderly account of the things that had happened (Luke 1:1-4). He also said how he got his information. He never said that it was revealed to him. Instead, he said that he collected information from eyewitnesses and from personal investigation. This suggests that Luke and Acts are not revealed to man by God. However, does that mean I should throw them out? Of course not. An accurate compilation of the history of Christ and the apostles is more than a little useful. It just means that I should realize that when I read Luke and Acts, I am reading a historical document that doesn't seem to be revealed by God.
-2 Timothy 3:16. Well, for one we have to realize that Paul is definetly not speaking of the NT scriptures at this point. We know this because Paul refers to the scriptures as the scriptures that Timothy was brought up learning (the OT). Also, we have reason to believe that not all of the OT was revealed by God by miraculous inspiration. Much of it was gathered as history and genealogies that were kept as Jewish record. Many of the Proverbs are not from Israelites, they are Solomon's collection of proverbs that originated from other kings that were of Gentile descent. I think that God-breathed indicates more of a harmony with God's nature. I do not think that it necessarily means that they were revealed miraculously all of the time. And I know that it was talking about the OT, the NT wasn't even written fully by then and it definetly was not collected as the bible. That took a good 400 years to get the canon. If we take 2 Tim 3:16 too literally, without looking at context, we will not know what scriptures Paul is talking about. However, from the context we can easily determine that he was speaking of the OT.
-"I notice that you rely on "logic and philosophy" instead of God's word, so I'm sure this has to be related to your view of the bible."--Western Kentucky
I base my logic and philosophy on what I know about God. I learn this through the inspired and purely historical texts of the bible. I also learn this from practical experience and my dealings with the world God has created. I attempt to base my logic and philosophy on God and a HUGE part of how I know about him is through the bible. I am not discrediting the bible. I am just not wanting to diefy it and make it something that it is not.
- We clearly recognize stylistic differences between the writers of the bible. This shows me that God did not reveal the text to them. AKA not holy words. This doesn't mean that I think that they are not holy thoughts or not accurate thoughts. But, I have trouble seeing how God's style of writing would morph to meet the writer He is using.
Upvote
0