|
What are some of your opinions about how much of the historical writings (not considered to be inspired, nor included in the bible) we should cling to, especially in the teaching of the word. Many teachers are careful to point out that it's not inspired so take it with a grain of salt, while others just pepper their teachings with all sorts of information from such writings and modern commentaries as if it were all biblical fact, weaving it in among scripture and never offering any explanation whatsoever. When someone asks them where they got that information, hearing them explain it is like watching someone try to put all the Rummikub tiles back the way they were before their failed attempt at a complicated rearrangement. I personally think it's fine to take some of that information and form somewhat of a context for certain scriptures with it, but to publicly teach it all together as if it's inspired word seems dangerous and irresponsible.
|
