The Bible totally perfect...right? (ritual, gospel, salvation, translation)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by MM21

I disagree...The Bible can be looked at as both. A textbook, that teaches an individual how to attain salvation, and live a life worth living. Because after all...it is a history book.

It is a book that contains history, but it is not a history book per se. A history textbook teaches objective fact. The Bible reveals subjective truth.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by sojourner

A history textbook teaches objective fact.

As long as histories are written by human beings, they will be subjective. The recording of history is an art, not a science.

[MM21]

Originally Posted by sojourner

It is a book that contains history, but it is not a history book per se. A history textbook teaches objective fact. The Bible reveals subjective truth.

Yea, I agree, but most would sum it up to say it is a history book, although it is much more than a mere book.

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

As long as histories are written by human beings, they will be subjective. The recording of history is an art, not a science.

Well stated and I concur! I am reminded of the age old expression "History is written by the victors."

btw...I have not heard anyone claim the Bible to be 'perfect'. I know many people who believe the books' authors to have been inspired by God.

[angellous_evangellous]

[quote=CaptainXeroid]btw...I have not heard anyone claim the Bible to be 'perfect'.[/quote]

That claim is the hallmark of American fundamentalist Protestantism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica...stant_position

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by MM21

I disagree...The Bible can be looked at as both. A textbook, that teaches an individual how to attain salvation, and live a life worth living. Because after all...it is a history book.

I can't agree with you... the Bible is a history book, but it is like the heroic narratives of Greek or Roman literature, or the oral histories of many peoples around the world or the later hagiographies of the saints. The Bible isn't meant to give us a detailed history or legal guidance - it is meant to illustrate profound spiritual, ethical or theological truths using the example of past events and people.

I think we should never lift quotes and laws from the Bible as though it was some dry and dusty book on East Anglian bylaws from 2004 to 2005 - it is to me the living and vibrant word of our Lord and so it should be considered as though Jesus were speaking to us. Therefore, we should use a measurement of common sense and meditation to discern the true, hidden meaning of scripture and the motivations behind the old laws.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

As long as histories are written by human beings, they will be subjective. The recording of history is an art, not a science.

Refer to Niebuhr's idea of "internal" and "external" history. History textbooks attempt (notice, I said "attempt." No textbook is perfect.) to relate "external" history -- fact only. The Bible attempts to relate the "internal" history of God's search for God's people -- the geschichte, if you will.

[MM21]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

Therefore, we should use a measurement of common sense and meditation to discern the true, hidden meaning of scripture and the motivations behind the old laws.

Exactly that is where I say it should/could be looked at as a textbook. In a sesne of textbook, it ought to be studied. Right? Into what it actually is saying, so that we don't take things out of context, misinterpret..etc. Ex. This girl was smoking a cigar when we went to Applebee's outside of the resteraunt last week. My friend said "see, if she knew the Bible, she would know that 'her body is a temple' so she wouldn't smoke." I looked at him crazy, and said. 1) Don't judge 2) That's out of context. It's imperative to study that book, therefore I use the term textbook.

[Scuba Pete]

The Bible never claims to be inerrant or perfect. That contention is merely a product of man's pride.

Originally Posted by Arrow

1Pe 1:12 "To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into."

But does spiritually inspired mean perfection?

[MM21]

Originally Posted by Arrow

1Pe 1:12 "To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into."

But does spiritually inspired mean perfection?

I might be the only one to agree that inspired does mean perfection. Reasons- 1) We all agree "All scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) 2) The Greek word in this passage "theopneustos" does not mean "inspired of God" Rather God-breathed, as a product of the creative breath of God. Ex. God breathed life into Adam (Gen 1:7) the breath of life. In correlation, He be breathed into the body of Scripture the breath of His life. 3) We are having a problem by assuming illumination and inspiration mean the same thing. Where in inspiration the Holy Spirit directed and influenced the writers so that, by "inspiration" it kept from erros of fact and doctrine. Illumination refers to the influence of the Holy Spirit, common to all Christians, which helps them grasp the things of God. 1 Cor. 2:14- talks about spritiaully discerning. In which that can be described as illumination.

Then again, not all people agree on what inspiration truly means...

Info above from..Pentacotal Theology book, by Guy. P. Duffield and N.M. Van Cleave