Orthodox_Freethinker

The thelogian Karl Barth made a very good point that The Bible is not God's revelation as much as it is the historical record of God's revelation. The text of Scripture is divinely inspired but written by human hands and therefore capable of error.
Though not correct in every detail, it does provide a reliable guide of what God requires us for salvation, what meaning there is to be found in life, and where faith can take us as a species if we only choose to follow Him.
Those who hold to an excessive adherence to a hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible are guilty of bibliolatry, clinging to the letter of Scripture yet missing its Spirit.

In truth, it is not the Bible that is the final Word of God but Christ himself, the one through whom God is fully revealed to all humankind:

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Whatever we know about God, we know from the words, deeds and character of Him made flesh; not from bronze age mythology.

Peace.

Bender

If we aren't to follow the letter of the law, but only the spirit, how are we to decide what constitutes the spirit of the law?

Orthodox_Freethinker

In my opinion, we would decide by following where the Spirit has guided the Church, given that the Church has existed from before the New Testament was even written.

Peace.

JoyJuice

What's the difference between divinely inspired, and being inspired from the idea of God? How does one distinguish the difference?

Orthodox_Freethinker

Divine inspiration basically means that God was breathing His truth into the authors of Scripture. This does not mean, however, that the Scriptures will be free of all error given that they were composed by human hands.

Peace.

JPD

So scripture has limited validity. Arguments about correct and incorrect interpretation cannot be verified clearly.

Orthodox_Freethinker

What I am saying is that not all parts of the Bible are meant to be understood 'literally'. Would you agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old? The Prodigal Son is just a parable but that doesn't make the entire Bible false.

Though the fathers of the Church had some disagreements on certain things, the Orthodox Church, the Church which Christ and the Apostles historically founded, usually relies upon the general consensus of the early church fathers for understanding Scriptures.

Peace.

JPD

I wouldn't say that the entirety of the Bible is false but the scriptures were composed by human hands and are not necessarily (clearly) free of error. Are you saying that what might at first glance be regarded as an error is in fact not an error, and just requires a different kind of interpretation? If so, will all believers draw the same interpretation, and if not, how relevant are the world views of the early church fathers now? Why should what for believers should be an entirely personal experience be in any way validated or guided by a group of self-agrandising individuals? How will the validity of each interpretation be measured bearing in mind that the essence of God remains unknown, so what you regard as the signs of God, but which cannot be traced to the essence, may not be anything of the sort?

JoyJuice

Why in the world if God was trying his best to keep his followers from worshiping other Gods, would he use their very same cultrual motifs and themes when it comes to inspiring the authors? I mean in the OP you write the prelude of John which is basically the thoughts of Philo, whose works were inspired from Heraclitus. Where's the divine inspiration in that other than paying attention to what others thought prior?

TomboyMom

Of course, the only way that we would possibly even suspect that their was such a person as "Christ himself" is through the bible, so if the bible is suspect, so is the existence of Christ.

You admit that some parts of the bible are crap. How do you decide which parts are crap and which aren't?