So what exactly is Biblical?

[ChristsSoldier115]

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.

 

[ErezY]

Biblical is what is written. How people understand the context of what is written is expressed in theology and doctrine. Or better termed exegesis. This is usually where the arguments come into play.

 

[topcare]

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.

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

 

[Mama Kidogo]

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

i think you hit the nail on the head.

But it should be those things written in scripture in context and as a whole.

 

[Cappadocious]

A glittering generality.

 

[James Is Back]

For simple sakes whatever is written in the Good Book.

 

[ErezY]

For simple sakes whatever is written in the Good Book.

Which version? Which translation?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

A glittering generality.

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

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Biblical is what is written in verse form. The facts of text that are usually interpreted in various ways.

 

[James Is Back]

Which version? Which translation?

If you want my opinion the original with the original language of Aramaic,Hebrew and Greek.

But as far as the translations I guess that's a personal choice I'd probably say the KJV but again that's a personal opinion.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Biblically correct and dispensationally wrong is the problem. That is why there are many divisions. The Bible is FOR us but ALL is not addressed TO us. God has dealt with man in various ways over the ages. We do not adhere to Garden Truth. We do not have to worry about an ark. Jesus was a dispensationalist and proved to be so when He "closed the book" in the temple without completing the passage from Isaiah.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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.

Whatever is in keeping with the complex of ideas that is biblical theology (itself a composition of Pauline theology, Lukan theology, Johannine theology, Isaianic-J theology, Deuteronomistic/Jeremianic theology, Exodus theology, etc.) is biblical.

I think the earliest we see those all beginning to be assembled into a coherent whole in Christian history is the work of Paul of Tarsus, who attempted to make sense of earlier biblical theologies in light of the work of Jesus of Nazareth; and then his work and the work of other New Testament writers isn't really put together in any comprehensive way until the life of Irenaeus of Lyon. Even then, I don't think Irenaeus' work is truly complete until Augustine's City of God.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Biblically correct and dispensationally wrong is the problem. That is why there are many divisions. The Bible is FOR us but ALL is not addressed TO us. God has dealt with man in various ways over the ages. We do not adhere to Garden Truth. We do not have to worry about an ark. Jesus was a dispensationalist and proved to be so when He "closed the book" in the temple without completing the passage from Isaiah.

If that's all you mean by dispensationalism, then we're all dispensationalists (except, I suppose, certain extreme forms of Messianic Judaism). We all believe that certain laws are only meant for certain ages, and that God 'dispenses' his administration of law and gospel differently at different times. Augustine and Calvin and all the history church believed that much.

But of course, that's not what is today known as dispensationalism, which is a way of literally interpreting prophetic texts as awaiting fulfillment with a secret rapture, a premillennial return of Christ, and Jewish state of Israel enjoying temporal fulfillment of Mosaic promises.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Being ole school does have it's disadvantages

 

[By Faith Alone]

Right Division IS dispensations.

Prov 3:5-6
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and....he shall direct thy paths.

 

[Gnarwhal]

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 would think that something is truly biblical not when it's applied word-for-word, but when it's broken down and examined through proper exegesis. When context is brought into consideration, and all the contributing factors that lend themselves to the text are weighed into it.

Otherwise what you have could very well be unbiblical because ones personal interpretation (don't kid yourselves, everyone does it if they're not careful to apply exegesis) could completely miss the point that the author was communicating.

 

[James Is Back]

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

 

[seeingeyes]

Whatever I think is Biblical is Biblical. Whatever you think is Biblical is wrong.

 

[completeme]

I also believe the KJV to be the most accurate.

 

[James Is Back]

Whatever I think is Biblical is Biblical. Whatever you think is Biblical is wrong.

But you're wrong because it's not Biblical