Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Is the Bible reliable?
by Dragon Lizard » Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:33 pm
How is the Bible even authoritative? What gives it that power? I'm under the impression that it was a bunch of higher up men in the middle age church choosing which books were "canon" So how is that reliable? And who's to say books like the book of Mormon or the apocrypha are irrelevant just because they were added after? Other than itself (which I don't even know that it claims that) what makes the Bible the undisputable inarguable complete out of the mouth of God Holy Text? And if so, why not just the Gospels and OT, why even include the letters? And who's to say the author of Revelation hadn't lost his marbles when writing it? Thanks for the help -Rob
- Dragon Lizard
Re: Is the Bible reliable?
by jimwalton » Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:41 pm
Rob, you're under the wrong impression. It was not a bunch of higher up men in the middle age choosing which books were canon. Let me try to explain.
The Old Testament books are never disputed. They were always recognized as Scripture, as far as we know, from the time of their writing. The list is never debated. The canon of the Old Testament was solidly in place by 150 BC, a full 500-1500 years before the Middle Ages.
The Gospels and the writings of Paul were also recognized as Scripture from the time of their writing. There is no debate on the authenticity or authority of these books.
When the church councils met in the 4th century to solidify the canon, the deliberations of the Church during this time involved recognizing the books given by God rather than deciding what books to include. The difference is a subtle but important one. The books of the New Testament are not Scripture because the Church said they were, but are Scripture because from the time of their composition they bore the mark of divine authority. The New Testament, and in fact the Bible as a whole, is thus a list of authoritative writings rather than an authoritative list of writings.
The Bible is authoritative because people who believe in God recognize that these books by these writers bear the stamp of God's voice. They are God-breathed, and God is their source. This is regarded to be so because of the truth in them and their life-changing power.
So let me address some of your specific questions.
> And who's to say books like the book of Mormon or the apocrypha are irrelevant just because they were added after?
One of the reasons the books of the Apocrypha or the Book of Mormon are considered irrelevant are because of the errors in them. The ratifiers of the canon didn't recognize as God-breathed any book that had errors in it.
> Other than itself (which I don't even know that it claims that) what makes the Bible the undisputable inarguable complete out of the mouth of God Holy Text?
Where else would you expect to get such an affirmation that you would accept? Is there another even possible source for the argument that it's holy text?
> And if so, why not just the Gospels and OT, why even include the letters?
The letters were recognized from their very writing as God-breathed. There was no dispute and never any debate about these letters from Paul. Paul was known at the time to have a hotline to God, so to speak. People knew the Holy Spirit was talking to him in a special way, right from the start.
> And who's to say the author of Revelation hadn't lost his marbles when writing it?
John's book of Revelation fits into a particular genre called apocalyptic writing. There are many examples from the era. There's nothing loony-toons about it—it follows the conventions of the genre that was accepted as a literary style, just as iambic pentameter is for poetry or dragons and princesses for fantasy literature. John's Revelation is actually a brilliant literal work, though the genre is intrinsically difficult to understand in terms of its prophecy because of its symbols, imagery, and figurative language. But it's clear by comparing it to other apocalypses that it wasn't written by a madman.
I'm willing to discuss any of this further with you if you want.
The Old Testament books are never disputed. They were always recognized as Scripture, as far as we know, from the time of their writing. The list is never debated. The canon of the Old Testament was solidly in place by 150 BC, a full 500-1500 years before the Middle Ages.
The Gospels and the writings of Paul were also recognized as Scripture from the time of their writing. There is no debate on the authenticity or authority of these books.
When the church councils met in the 4th century to solidify the canon, the deliberations of the Church during this time involved recognizing the books given by God rather than deciding what books to include. The difference is a subtle but important one. The books of the New Testament are not Scripture because the Church said they were, but are Scripture because from the time of their composition they bore the mark of divine authority. The New Testament, and in fact the Bible as a whole, is thus a list of authoritative writings rather than an authoritative list of writings.
The Bible is authoritative because people who believe in God recognize that these books by these writers bear the stamp of God's voice. They are God-breathed, and God is their source. This is regarded to be so because of the truth in them and their life-changing power.
So let me address some of your specific questions.
> And who's to say books like the book of Mormon or the apocrypha are irrelevant just because they were added after?
One of the reasons the books of the Apocrypha or the Book of Mormon are considered irrelevant are because of the errors in them. The ratifiers of the canon didn't recognize as God-breathed any book that had errors in it.
> Other than itself (which I don't even know that it claims that) what makes the Bible the undisputable inarguable complete out of the mouth of God Holy Text?
Where else would you expect to get such an affirmation that you would accept? Is there another even possible source for the argument that it's holy text?
> And if so, why not just the Gospels and OT, why even include the letters?
The letters were recognized from their very writing as God-breathed. There was no dispute and never any debate about these letters from Paul. Paul was known at the time to have a hotline to God, so to speak. People knew the Holy Spirit was talking to him in a special way, right from the start.
> And who's to say the author of Revelation hadn't lost his marbles when writing it?
John's book of Revelation fits into a particular genre called apocalyptic writing. There are many examples from the era. There's nothing loony-toons about it—it follows the conventions of the genre that was accepted as a literary style, just as iambic pentameter is for poetry or dragons and princesses for fantasy literature. John's Revelation is actually a brilliant literal work, though the genre is intrinsically difficult to understand in terms of its prophecy because of its symbols, imagery, and figurative language. But it's clear by comparing it to other apocalypses that it wasn't written by a madman.
I'm willing to discuss any of this further with you if you want.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:41 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests