but what we need to remember when addressing this topic is the view that geiseler and nix took to it, that canonicity its determined by God and that humans merely rediscover God's already existent canon. be that as it may there is five principles that may be employed in the deciding of a the authenticity of a book.
the first is authority, can the voice of God be heard clearly though this book?
the second test is the prophetic nature of the book, this test looks at authorship.
the third test is authenticity of the actual book, not the authorship. does the doctrine in this book cohere to that of already accepted books of the Bible?
the fourth test was power, does this book have the power of God?
the last test was reception, was the book generally already accepted by the orthodox church. this test was used mostly as confirmation.
Regardless of the nature of its make I'm fairly certain everyone knows of the bible's significance. Even more than that, why are we discussing or trying to validate said nature? If you don't believe that the bible is an integral tool in the Christian's arsenal, then you probably aren't much of a believer anyway, and can probably find much easier ways to waste your time. Speaking of wasting one's time, why was this point even the topic of discussion? There's no real applicable significance to this at all. Either the bible is holy and perfect, or it's not and it's flawed. That's not even an argument that will better anyone in a literal sense. Through the bible one can certainly do that, but that isn't the point. Spare me there rediculous analyzations of tedium, and give me something heavy I can sort through.
ReplyDeleteHmm, clever analyzation.
ReplyDeletelol thanks zach, its just what we talked about in bible...
ReplyDelete