-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Final Authority
- Thread starter James2028
- Start date
InChrist
Free4ever
I believe the Bible, God's Word is the final authority.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It's both.
For example, if someone is using the KJV, and they are expecting a textual argument, or presenting an argument in that context, then the 'directness' should be followed, and then you have, how something must be interpreted.
We encounter this with theological arguments, as, for example, the New Testament, says there is only One Lord, [for biblical believers.
Now, using the KJV, we then would follow that format, without contradiction, (sola scriptura.
However, in matters of interpretation, that are less literal, obviously a belief has to use interpretation, then this could be argued from other text, so forth.
For example, if someone is using the KJV, and they are expecting a textual argument, or presenting an argument in that context, then the 'directness' should be followed, and then you have, how something must be interpreted.
We encounter this with theological arguments, as, for example, the New Testament, says there is only One Lord, [for biblical believers.
Now, using the KJV, we then would follow that format, without contradiction, (sola scriptura.
However, in matters of interpretation, that are less literal, obviously a belief has to use interpretation, then this could be argued from other text, so forth.
James2028
Member
There is no such thing as " the bible " .
There are hundreds of bibles
which do not match in content,
volume or doctrine.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
What tends to goof people up, is when they believe that the 'New Testament', is a type of 'separate bible', from the 'Old Testament'.
The Bible, read as a whole, like the KJV, cannot be read, in that manner. The New Testament being 'more texts', after the 'Old Testament', yet they have to correlate.
The Bible, read as a whole, like the KJV, cannot be read, in that manner. The New Testament being 'more texts', after the 'Old Testament', yet they have to correlate.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You are going to get 'necessary interpretation'.
In acts of the Apostles, Stephen relates 'circumcision', to Abraham;
In Galatians, the Apostle Paul, does not relate the practice of circumcision, to Abraam.
So, something must be interpreted, there.
There should be a logical basis for interpretation, in other words, and not 'complete abandonment' of the context.
In acts of the Apostles, Stephen relates 'circumcision', to Abraham;
In Galatians, the Apostle Paul, does not relate the practice of circumcision, to Abraam.
So, something must be interpreted, there.
There should be a logical basis for interpretation, in other words, and not 'complete abandonment' of the context.
Last edited:
leov
Well-Known Member
What about when there was o Bible
" 15FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’"
iam1me
Active Member
Reason is the final authority. Scripture as we know it wouldn't exist without the church. And the church put forth arguments at different times to justify different canonizations - arguments that can be evaluated against modern day evidence. We can further evaluate those scriptures to look for errors that have crept in over time thanks to a wealth of manuscripts.
I've personally read through most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series, and I learned a lot. They heavily relied upon scripture to make their arguments, even if at times they referenced works we don't generally recognize today. They also drew from Greek Philosophy, such as Plato. At times praising him and and other times drawing a distinction between Plato and Christianity.
Tradition should be our starting place - we should seek to understand the arguments and positions handed down by the church. But once we've learned these arguments and positions, then we can begin to question their premises, evidence, and overall logic - and see if there aren't better solutions
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
There is, however, necessary correlation, no matter how reductionist you want to get.
Theologically, I am an extreme reductionist, I correlate all my "theology", to one book of the Bible.
If I read the New Testament, then in reductionist absolutism, you are going to have to know or read other books of the Bible. In non textual reductionism, you are going to have to know the same thing, to get religio-academic correlation.
So, there really is a "Bible", that one must take into context.
Audie
Veteran Member
As elsewhere noted, believing things is what believrrs do.
The white queen was able to believe as many as
six impossible things before breakfast.
Some of us, though, like to have a
reason for belief.
And
Some of us are ready to change what we believe,
given good and sufficient reason.
Believers are stuck. Once believed, always believed.
Audie
Veteran Member
The English word “Bible” comes through the Latin from the Greek word bi·bliʹa, meaning “little books.” This, in turn, is derived from biʹblos, a word that describes the inner part of the papyrus plant out of which a primitive form of paper was made. The Phoenician city of Gebal, famous for its papyrus trade, was called by the Greeks “Byblos.”
In time bi·bliʹa came to describe various writings, scrolls, books, and eventually the collection of little books that make up the Bible. Jerome called this collection Bibliotheca Divina, the Divine Library.
You need an accurate definition of what the Bible is before you begin to assess its contents.
James2028
Member
The Original Only Theory
states that only the original autographs
were infallible. Therefore what we have
today are reliable N.T. Greek Texts
and reliable language translations.
There are over 24 N.T. Greek Texts
which do not match in content,
volume or doctrine.
There are over 300 English translations
which do not match in content, volume
or doctrine.
All of these texts are reconstructed.
states that only the original autographs
were infallible. Therefore what we have
today are reliable N.T. Greek Texts
and reliable language translations.
There are over 24 N.T. Greek Texts
which do not match in content,
volume or doctrine.
There are over 300 English translations
which do not match in content, volume
or doctrine.
All of these texts are reconstructed.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Ah! So now we find out what the real topic is!
I've been waiting for two pages! I feel like somebody just gave me noogees (head locked in someone's elbow and their fist ground into the top of my scalp).
I sincerely believe that Audie has stumbled happily upon the most Biblical, the most canonical, the most authoritative position. I do admire the effort (in the OP) to be honest and to throw away corruption. Its in earnest and the love that is behind it is what is truly powerful about your post.