Does the fact that something is not included between the covers of the Bible mean that it couldn't have been insprired? The bible makes several references to other writings that are not included in the bible such as Enochs writings etc. The bible is everything we need for life and Godliness, but it is not all the information that is available to us that is true is it? If it does not agree with the bible, throw it out. If it does agree and sheds a little light on things its an asset isn't it? For instance the book of Barnabus condemns abortion in no uncertain terms "destroy not thy conception." There is a also a verse that says "For thus he saith; Blessed are thay who put their trust in the cross, descend into the water for they shall have their reward in due time." A lot is easily determined as false. But a lot have been a great help to me. 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.
|
