Yes, I alluded to that verse:
Originally Posted by Abigail
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.And we affirm this truth when we agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But if we say that we have only the "essence" of what Jesus said we are left not knowing what he actually said and this opens up a can of worms relative to the defense of the Bible as the literal historical record of "what Jesus really said and did." And it also evokes a very troubling question - did the Holy Spirit "inspire" a false record? If we insist that the inspired record is a literal historical narrative, then having only the "essence" of the Truth is no better than a falsehood because it is not "The Truth." Why did God inspire apparently contradictory accounts that are impossible to reconcile? This is the problem with capital T kind of Truth - we can not assert that the Gospels give a True Literal Historical Record if they only give the "essence" of that Truth along with a lot of "non-essential" non-Truths. As far as I can tell, there is no way to harmonize all the statements of the Gospels into a single integrated literal historical narrative.
Now the existence of the BW does not mean we "do not need to try and fit these words into literal historical narrative." I came to that conclusion when I simply accepted Scripture as it is given. But this conclusion causes many people to reject the Bible as the Word of God because as soon as we say that the Gospels give only the "essence" of what Jesus said, folks naturally ask "How much represents what Jesus really said, and how much is stuff made up by the Gospel writers?" This is exemplified in the extreme by the many books on textual criticism that often conclude by denying that Jesus said much of anything recorded in the Gospels.
The BW counters this tendency by giving us a powerful, intellectually defensible and satisfying direct perception that the Scriptures as a whole were designed by God. Thus, we accept it as it is without feeling a need to force it into human categories like "literal historical narrative" in order to defend it as the "Word of God."
And this opens our minds to the possibility that the Bible is something much more than a mere historical narrative. It seems to me that this is the intent of the Author of Scripture because of the way that He designed the Bible. He did not intend for us to mistake it for a literal historical record - we know this because He made it impossible for us to understand it that way.
I'm still working on understanding all this. Please don't take anything as my "last word." I very much appreciate your questions because they help me think about it.
All the very best,