That’s a historical text interpretation of the Bible, which is legit to me. However I’d say only a minority of practicing Christians regard it that way. With the rest, you have more fundamentalist views of the Bible as the literal word of God and the flexible view of it as teachings inspired by God. Therefore these views treat the Bible specifically as authoritative, timeless, and divine, elevating it above a mere human document and transcendent of historical context. Timothy 3:17 seems to reflect the common idea that “the Bible is the only book you need”.
I do agree that one can make a historical argument for an interpretation of scripture, and maybe even do so in a way that reifies one’s personal relationship with God. However it doesn’t engage with the Bible the way most Christians do and therefore is not likely to be all that persuasive.
bremen15@feddit.org 5 hours ago
excellent, someone who knows :-)