If you believe that is what we have, then you hold a belief in common with the Mohammedans, FK. The reason what you have opined is off the mark is because men wrote those scriptures, they were not dictated to them by the HS or an angel and the "pretty much" final form of the canon was likewise established by men to accomplish a specific purpose of The Church.
Well, if you believe that is what we have, then it seems one of two things must be true. Either all of the writers of the Bible were independently capable of writing on the same level as God, OR, the original finished copies of all the books of the Bible were all subject to error. I do not think either of these is palatable, so I think that the inspiration under which the books were written was complete to the point of perfection. Every writer was a sinner, so anything short of this would leave the scriptures wide open to error.
Do you think men just wrote the prophesies, or were they "dictated" by God? BTW, "dictated" is not a word that I have used for this. I don't really think inspiration works like that. We see elements of personality in the writings. What I do believe, though, is that however it literally worked, all chance for error was eliminated.
Now I think all true Christians can agree that the writings were inspired by the HS and inspired in a way that other writings of the time and since were not even if they too were inspired by the HS (which, by the way, I firmly believe in many instances).
If you say that the scriptures were inspired to a point prohibiting the possibility of error, then you are either a Mohammedan just like me, or you believe that the men were equal to God. :) ---- I've never thought of divine inspiration being on a sliding scale before, as you describe, but I suppose it's possible. We are all gifted differently, and certainly some writing is better than others, so I can go with you on this.
Similarly, I think all true Christians can agree that canon "pretty much" was established ... by 4th century councils in North Africa and Rome under the inspiration of the the HS.
I have no problem with the HS leading the men of the Church in the FORMAL assembly of the scriptures at the Councils. However, I think the HS had already been fully at work establishing the scriptures through the people at the local church level from the beginning. I see the Councils not being a group of "grand discerners" on what was correct scripture, but being closer to a rubber stamp on what the people had already accepted as scriptures. I'm not saying the Councils were useless, but just closer to the latter than the former.
My point is not that because you believe as you do about the nature of the canon scripture, ipso facto, you must be Orthodox. I am saying that your beliefs about the nature of the canon are inconsistent with your rejection of the beliefs of the men who put that canon together.
How so? I don't give any individual man (or woman) credit for being so wise and brilliant as to either write a book of the Bible or correctly include it in the Canon, on his own. The nature of the Canon was that it was divinely inspired in its main assembly, done through the early laity. The Church then formally formed it through Councils, also under the direct supervision of the HS. I consider that a completely separate topic from to what degree the early Church hierarchy taught from scriptures correctly. All men are like grass and will eventually wither and die, :
1 Peter 1:25 25 but the word of the Lord stands forever ."
Kolo, what is the foundation of your faith if you believe that the Scriptures were just men's words? What makes their words any more true than the Quran of the Bhagavad Gita, or the Adi Granth??? After all, if their words were not directly inspired and controlled by God then we have a work of human beings on our hands. If we have a work of human beings alone, then it is subject to improvising, forgetfulness, distortions of every kind. If your entire faith is based upon only what men have said (be they in the Scripture or throughout the ages as churchmen), how can you have the least bit confidence that God is even in it???? Experientialism? Hindus have that? Faith??? Muslims have that. What makes your faith any different from any other man-made religion if you believe that Scripture is merely man's word and not man's words as directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Huh? With or without the Deuterocanon? "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable..."