I agree, but that hardly explains the role of St. Paul, or the book entitled "Revelation of John" (aka the Book of Revelation).
although our understanding of that revelation can continue to grow as we look at Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit and grow in knowledge of what has been revealed
That's possible, but the "help for the Holy Spirit" is a faith-based assumption and should correctly be stated "and we believe with the help of the Holy Spirit," as a matter of faith, rather than as a matter of fact.
In conclusion, while the authors may not have been scientists in the way we think of objects and things today that does not make the Scriptures fallible or errant
So far, it's all fair.
Different authors revealing God according to their histories gives us a fuller meaning of God that otherwise would limit our understanding.
It's all based on copies of copies and on a priori faith. If faith is salvific, then there is no need for scriptures. You don't learn how to believe through the Bible. In order for the Bible to "make sense" you already have to believe. But if you already believe, what are you going to change? Is believing in God not enough?
What appears to be contradiction is actually different authors understanding that revelation according to their histories and the emphasis’ that they place on that revelation
I agree.
Since God is not an object of this world it makes no sense to use empirical methods to try and interpret his revelation.
From an Orthodox point of view, that makes God a supreme mystery and I agree. Those of us who believe that Jesus is both God and Man, we can relate to Him in his human nature and worship/pray to him in his divine nature, as a Holy Trinity, or as each Divine Hypostasis. But never in God's divine nature, which remains unknown and unimaginable, incomprehensible and invisible.
I agree that empirical method cannot prove anything about God or faith. It also can't disprove anything regarding it. But, you the same token, neither can those who believe prove anything by quoting the bible.
kosta: I agree, but that hardly explains the role of St. Paul, or the book entitled "Revelation of John" (aka the Book of Revelation).
Paul, no doubt, was witness to the many events of Christ and had a direct revelation of Christ and was confirmed by the other Apostles as an Apostle. John, the author of Revelations, was a direct Apostle and witness.
That's possible, but the "help for the Holy Spirit" is a faith-based assumption and should correctly be stated "and we believe with the help of the Holy Spirit," as a matter of faith, rather than as a matter of fact.
No need to dictomize between faith and fact. Matters of faith could be fact. You place faith in atheist scholars and in some instances the trust you place in their conclusions may turn out to be fact.
It's all [Scripture] based on copies of copies and on a priori faith. If faith is salvific, then there is no need for scriptures. You don't learn how to believe through the Bible. In order for the Bible to "make sense" you already have to believe. But if you already believe, what are you going to change? Is believing in God not enough?
Is seeing the face of God in creation a priori? No, I know God by experiencing creation. Is seeing the face of God through my conscience a priori? No, I know God by my experiences of conscience. Is seeing the face of God in Scripture a priori? No, I know God by experiencing him through Scripture. Faith is not salvic. Christ is salvic. Faith is merely the instrumentality that appropriates Christ's righteousness. It's impossible to believe in the true God unless you believe he revealed himself. Since God revealed himself in Christ and we can know of Christ through Scripture then one must believe in the divinity of Scripture in order to trust Christ and appropriate his righteousness.
those who believe [can't] prove anything by quoting the bible.
Trusting in the promises of him who is completely trustworthy really has nothing to prove. All we can do is point to where he has shown his trustworthiness. If you don't trust the record of his trustworthiness then you won't trust the promises.