In the reformed camp, the exegetical methodology is to interepret scripture in accordance with what else is said in scripture

So where something is vague, look at in context with what is said before and after it, along with other passages in scripture

But yeah, we also heavily follow the writings of Augustine, and his work on the sovereignty and grace of god

Along with of course Calvin

well scripture is infallible

Scripture is the inspired and authorative word of god

Everyting else is the work of mere men

Some of those dudes have a lot of insight

but they don't stand higher than scripture

Do you have a problem with biblical inerrancy?

@Deleted User hmm

what is

What is your point?

@Deleted User

Well..

you can't

by definition

Like, there are points in the text where it is pretty obvious

And you can't weave around it

Well yeah

We have the nicene creed

And we have the Westminister confession of faith

Well the early councils decided that didn't they man

We have used what was used since then haven't we

For almost 2000 years

Ok

The bible in its current 66 books form came to be over many years very early on in the church bro

I mean unless you have some greater insight into the matter

I'd love to hear

You're asking a pretty broad question that has been covered at lengths in varous books by people way more knowledgable of the subject than you or me man

I'm curious, what about yourself and your background man

You said you're orthodox

ok

Well um, actually after having done some reading, i don't really know you can point to a specific point in history where suddenly bam we had the new testament. It was a historical process or development.

But for the really councils in use by the eastern church it was the septuagint

because greek was still relatively common

ok

So, because most of the world at the point in history around the mediteranean was greek speaking

The Septuagint was the greek translation of the old testament (including the Torah)

This included several deutro-canonical books

Like Maccabees and Esdras

The New Testament likewise was composed almost entirely in greek

The only book that wasn't originally hebrew was daniel which was written in Aramaic

This matters because since the early church still was largely greek speaking, the canon already included the Old testament (ie the Septuagint)

With the various letters and books of the new Testament being really, really widespread

As in, we literally have the best textual evidence for it because theres just so many damn copies and manuscripts

yes, correct

The use of the current canon as it currently stands was pretty concrete pretty early on, because it is referenced by different authors

Along with manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Alexandrianus

So, nah bro. No council really

Just the Holy Spirit at work orchestrating the effort of God's holy scripture coming together

No worries man

But yeah, you are correct

Revelations is a bit of fruit cake

I think you mischaraterised what I said

It was a gradual development

Over time

Councils simply ratified was already largely in place. Most of what the councils did was reactionairy to solidify a certain position of the church in opposition to heretics

Yeah

Absolutely

Yeah

Gnostics as well

followers of Arius

Pelagius

And many others spreading false teachings

Yes, but in that sense, the council doesn't replace scripture, nor should it discourage personal reading of it.

I know i know

But some people rely too heavily upon what their church or denomination has said to believe about some passages in scripture

I especially think you're correct

I'm not a fan of the KJV

The KJV was politcal through and through

You are correct to a point. You should be able to trust your church elders and deacons and wiser and more mature people in their faiths

But that doesn't mean you shouldnt explore the bible for yourself

The KJV was based on manuscript basis that is no longer as authorative

And its translation of the words into Bishop as opposed to Overseer

Which is more literal

Yes, absolutely

Which translation do you use btw?

Yeah

I use the ESV

Awesome translation

"The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts: but in that case the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly. Wesley, Letters, 3:129; 5:328."

In some ways though, a literal translation is not prefereable, like for instance where poetical or allegorical language is used

But for the most part, most if not the vast majority of passages of scriputre are pretty obviously meant to be taken literally

Because I'm a protestant I will be honest, its up to the church and their theolgical statements.

However, I think we can differ on secondary and tertiary matters

However, when it comes to primary matters, such as the ressurection, the gospel and whatnot those are non-negotiable

I am protestant bro

The reformed camp is from the protestant tradition

Well not exactly man

The Bible stands as the single authorative, infallible inerrant piece of scripture

Interepretion thereof is not divine

The Bible as it stands, is the anchor and the foundation, along with the Holy Spirit man

Well, not really

I think that mis characterises quite of lot of Christianity man

I mean have you been granted the gift of infallibility?

The early church tooks years to hammer out the doctrines on the trinity and the person of christ

In that sense those councils were helpful

But it is authorative because it is derived from what has been said in scripture

They are not authorative because some bishop was like, 'meh, screw it.. that verse means this'