What is the Bible?

rsc2a

New member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
7,797
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I thought about making this a poll question but realized the answers could never be broad enough.



If you were talking with the Anymanwillbeya tribe in the isolated land of anywhere and had to explain what the Bible was in a concise, clear way, what would you say? Remember the anymanwillbeyas don't understand complex theological concepts, specialized English words, or even necessarily our most basic cultural beliefs, so it would need to be on a very simple level.
 
On a very simple level? It's some stuff God wanted us to know, so He had some of His people write it down. In their own words. He didn't have them take dictation, because stenographers hadn't been invented yet.
 
Different missionaries in different regions have used many different terms according to the culture and beliefs of the tribal region.  One I have read somewhat frequently used is:  GodTalk
 
The term "Bible" means nothing more than "book". A collection of writings. Its interesting to note that the English word Bible has its roots in the Greek word "Biblios". Which can reference many varying sources of writings.

The term "Scripture" is far more meaningful designation. A "book" can contain Scripture, yet it isn't a exhaustive collection of "Scripture". The use of the term "Bible" to reference an exhaustive collection of Scripture is really a misnomer.
 
Izdaari said:
On a very simple level? It's some stuff God wanted us to know, so He had some of His people write it down. In their own words. He didn't have them take dictation, because stenographers hadn't been invented yet.

Dictation is often misconstrued to mean a word for word recording of various words spoken aloud. A simpler and more accurate definition dictation in referencing the recording of "Scripture" is found in...

the action of giving orders authoritatively or categorically

It is accurate to say that when a "writer" references "thus saith the Lord"..... its can commonly be referred to as "dictation".
 
christundivided said:
The term "Bible" means nothing more than "book". A collection of writings. Its interesting to note that the English word Bible has its roots in the Greek word "Biblios". Which can reference many varying sources of writings.

The term "Scripture" is far more meaningful designation. A "book" can contain Scripture, yet it isn't a exhaustive collection of "Scripture". The use of the term "Bible" to reference an exhaustive collection of Scripture is really a misnomer.

"Scripture" is simply "Writings", at least in the Jewish canon (historically).

Jewish Canon as of 200 BCE and Time of Christ
The Jewish canon by Jesus’ day was divided up in Law, Prophets and Writings.  The Law was called Torah. The Prophets section was called Nev’im. The Writings section was called Ketuvim.[1]

The Prophets section was finalized around 200 BCE. The Writings section, Ketuvim, was referred to in a Greek commentary on Ecclesiasticus as “other books” — when it mentioned “the law and prophets and the other books of our fathers.” (See John Haralson Hayes, Introduction to the Bible (1971) at 21.) [2]

The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as inspired, and the “other books were prized and read as edifying books.”[2] The Jews of Alexandria and Egypt accepted the Torah as inspired, but also “revered the Prophets and Writings.”[2] The Samaritans only accepted the Torah as inspired and to be revered.[2] Thus, Sadducees and Samaritans rejected the Writings section as inspired. It was edifying.

The latter view predominated by the time of Christ. Books that claimed to be prophetic but which did not yet have any prophecy fulfilled were thus kept in the Ketuvim section to reflect their as yet unproven inspired status. The most important example and proof of this fact is the book of Daniel:

The book of Daniel is found in the third section of the Hebrew Bible known as the ‘Writings,’ rather than the second section ‘the Prophets.’ (Joel Osteen, Hope for Today Bible (2009) at 951.)

Who accepted the Writings section as more than edifying? The Pharisees. One scholar notes that the “Pharisaic Jewish historian” gives a picture of canon where the Law, Prophets and Writings were all sacrosanct.  (Hayes, supra, at 22.)[3] 

Jesus spoke of the “Law and the Prophets” never fading away. He never spoke the same about the “Writings” (Kevutim) which, had Jesus done so, would have meant He adopted the Pharasaical view of the Bible. Jesus thereby deliberately drops off the expanded Pharisaical view of the Bible when Jesus speaks only of the validity of the “Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17.) See also Acts 28:23.

The way the ancient Jews divided canon was also done by explaining three levels of inspiration with the Law and Prophets clearly trumping the third level. While for a Christian these three levels would all appear equal, the point is that this is how Rabbis back then explained the three tiers of the canon so that “Writings” (Ketuvim) would never be on par with the Law and Prophets. In an article entitled “Inspiration” by Rev. James Gardner from 1858, we read:


The Jews were accustomed to speak of three different degrees of inspiration. Moses, they alleged, possessed the highest degree, with whom God spake mouth to mouth; the second, according to their view, was the gift of prophecy; and the lowest, the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, from which proceeded the holy writings or Hagiograplia. (Rev. James Gardner, “Inspiration,” The faiths of the world: an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (A. Fullarton & co., 1858) at 142.)

Source:
http://standfordrives.wordpress.com/article/writings-section-of-original-bible-of-g6z6g2l2q6zj-26/
 
Smellin Coffee said:
christundivided said:
The term "Bible" means nothing more than "book". A collection of writings. Its interesting to note that the English word Bible has its roots in the Greek word "Biblios". Which can reference many varying sources of writings.

The term "Scripture" is far more meaningful designation. A "book" can contain Scripture, yet it isn't a exhaustive collection of "Scripture". The use of the term "Bible" to reference an exhaustive collection of Scripture is really a misnomer.

"Scripture" is simply "Writings", at least in the Jewish canon (historically).

Jewish Canon as of 200 BCE and Time of Christ
The Jewish canon by Jesus’ day was divided up in Law, Prophets and Writings.  The Law was called Torah. The Prophets section was called Nev’im. The Writings section was called Ketuvim.[1]

The Prophets section was finalized around 200 BCE. The Writings section, Ketuvim, was referred to in a Greek commentary on Ecclesiasticus as “other books” — when it mentioned “the law and prophets and the other books of our fathers.” (See John Haralson Hayes, Introduction to the Bible (1971) at 21.) [2]

The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as inspired, and the “other books were prized and read as edifying books.”[2] The Jews of Alexandria and Egypt accepted the Torah as inspired, but also “revered the Prophets and Writings.”[2] The Samaritans only accepted the Torah as inspired and to be revered.[2] Thus, Sadducees and Samaritans rejected the Writings section as inspired. It was edifying.

The latter view predominated by the time of Christ. Books that claimed to be prophetic but which did not yet have any prophecy fulfilled were thus kept in the Ketuvim section to reflect their as yet unproven inspired status. The most important example and proof of this fact is the book of Daniel:

The book of Daniel is found in the third section of the Hebrew Bible known as the ‘Writings,’ rather than the second section ‘the Prophets.’ (Joel Osteen, Hope for Today Bible (2009) at 951.)

Who accepted the Writings section as more than edifying? The Pharisees. One scholar notes that the “Pharisaic Jewish historian” gives a picture of canon where the Law, Prophets and Writings were all sacrosanct.  (Hayes, supra, at 22.)[3] 

Jesus spoke of the “Law and the Prophets” never fading away. He never spoke the same about the “Writings” (Kevutim) which, had Jesus done so, would have meant He adopted the Pharasaical view of the Bible. Jesus thereby deliberately drops off the expanded Pharisaical view of the Bible when Jesus speaks only of the validity of the “Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17.) See also Acts 28:23.

The way the ancient Jews divided canon was also done by explaining three levels of inspiration with the Law and Prophets clearly trumping the third level. While for a Christian these three levels would all appear equal, the point is that this is how Rabbis back then explained the three tiers of the canon so that “Writings” (Ketuvim) would never be on par with the Law and Prophets. In an article entitled “Inspiration” by Rev. James Gardner from 1858, we read:


The Jews were accustomed to speak of three different degrees of inspiration. Moses, they alleged, possessed the highest degree, with whom God spake mouth to mouth; the second, according to their view, was the gift of prophecy; and the lowest, the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, from which proceeded the holy writings or Hagiograplia. (Rev. James Gardner, “Inspiration,” The faiths of the world: an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (A. Fullarton & co., 1858) at 142.)

Source:
http://standfordrives.wordpress.com/article/writings-section-of-original-bible-of-g6z6g2l2q6zj-26/

Your second quote contradicts your first statement. The varying levels of inspiration mentioned in the quote places these "texts" as being more than just merely "writings".

As collection, you may make such an argument as you've presented. Individually.... they are more than just "writings".
 
christundivided said:
The term "Bible" means nothing more than "book". . . . Which can reference many varying sources of writings.

The term "Scripture" is far more meaningful designation.

Thank you for the fascinating yet irrelevant etymology lesson.

If someone asked you, "Would you please hand me the Bible from that bookshelf?" would you have to ask whether he meant Scripture, the dictionary, or Fifty Shades of Grey?
 
Ransom said:
christundivided said:
The term "Bible" means nothing more than "book". . . . Which can reference many varying sources of writings.

The term "Scripture" is far more meaningful designation.

Thank you for the fascinating yet irrelevant etymology lesson.

If someone asked you, "Would you please hand me the Bible from that bookshelf?" would you have to ask whether he meant Scripture, the dictionary, or Fifty Shades of Grey?

Actually, I think it would be...

how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people.jpg


:D
 
rsc2a said:
f you were talking with the Anymanwillbeya tribe in the isolated land of anywhere and had to explain what the Bible was in a concise, clear way, what would you say?

The Bible is a book - really many books written over many years - that explains what God requires of all men if they wish to live in peace and friendship with him.

That's the start. Anything else would probably depend on the tenor of the conversation, as well as any follow-up questions that might be asked.
 
Hello, y’all.

I would agree that because of the technology (not to mention the literacy) required, ‘the Bible’ in the sense of a bound volume, which is popularly assessable to whomever desires to inquire of it is a rather late development in the history of God’s people. Necessarily, such an artifact (and the traditions it enables) was unknown to scripture itself and to the life of the people of God until after the 15th century.

Scripture knows of scripture, and the church has always had scripture. So to include all Xians at all times, 'scripture', then.

This is a really interesting question; seems like the most radically significant things in my life are all impervious to simple explanations- think mother, dining, sex…  No matter what you lay out, there is always more to say. The only way to grasp it is to experience it, and I suspect the only way to grasp scripture in the most tacit and full way is to experience it in the life of the church. I guess I’d bring them to the Eucharist with me, and let them experience it in action.

I might try:

Our story- the story that baptism makes us a part of…
The story around which the liturgy shapes us weekly as human beings…
A fellow broken player that God has elect to use in the salvation of the world…
God’s creative speech (not simply revelation) - though largely through appropriation and deputation…
The multifaceted, age-long conversation of God’s people about God, creation and themselves…

Always more…

Hardly brief, but here’s some thoughts I’ve posted for my kids.

http://dappledthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/some-random-half-baked-propositions-on-scripture/

-Phil
 
My answer -

The Bible is a collection of stories, poems, letters and other writings that reveal how God has acted, and continues to act, in history in order to accomplish His purpose of restoring creation to a state of perfection.
 
The inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God.
 
T-Bone said:
The inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God.

And the Anymanwillbeyan asks, "What does inspired mean? What does infallible mean? What does inerrant mean? What do you mean, 'Word of God'?"
 
rsc2a said:
T-Bone said:
The inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God.

And the Anymanwillbeyan asks, "What does inspired mean? What does infallible mean? What does inerrant mean? What do you mean, 'Word of God'?"

And then I would share with him what it means...all words have meaning, so I would hope the "anyman" understands English.  Your explanation might also cause "him" to ask questions.  Now if he is incapable of understanding plain English, no explanation will do.  If he speaks another language, I will have to get an interpreter.
 
Chauntecleer said:
Hardly brief, but here’s some thoughts I’ve posted for my kids.

I'm fairly sure that by the time you reach bullet #17, the Anymanwillbeyans will have stuck you in a giant pot with some carrots and onions, and lit a fire under you.
 
Ransom said:
christundivided said:
The term "Bible" means nothing more than "book". . . . Which can reference many varying sources of writings.

The term "Scripture" is far more meaningful designation.

Thank you for the fascinating yet irrelevant etymology lesson.

If someone asked you, "Would you please hand me the Bible from that bookshelf?" would you have to ask whether he meant Scripture, the dictionary, or Fifty Shades of Grey?

There there Scott... It'll be alright. Just calm down....

If you do not know the history of the term.... then you have no idea how to apply it.

Let me ask you a simple question. Have you ever heard of the book "The Fisherman's Bible"? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't have to do with anything concerning the Scriptures.

Its not alone, there are many "book titles" that use the term "bible". Its not a sacrilegious attempt to play off the popularity of the "The Bible". Your lack of understand doesn't necessitate viewing my response as being "irrelevant".
 
rsc2a said:
My answer -

The Bible is a collection of stories, poems, letters and other writings that reveal how God has acted, and continues to act, in history in order to accomplish His purpose of restoring creation to a state of perfection.

I have to say this is a rather naive view.

The very fact the Protestant "collection" leaves out God's divine action in Israel in the institution of the Feast of Dedication referenced in John 10:22.... tells you that collection is nothing more than the preference of man. Not that this has anything to do with "soiling" the term Scripture. Yet, it has a very much to do with the term "Bible".
 
Top