The Bible is God's word, but what is God's word?

Clare73 · May 19, 2021

GOD Shines Forth! said:
I found it interesting that Scripture is personified in a couple of places in Galatians (maybe more):

"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."—Gal. 3:8

and

"But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."—Gal. 3:22

Nice.

All treated as God speaking.

The Liturgist · May 20, 2021

Bouan Philippe said:
Does the Bible have to be perfect word for word to qualify as being God's word?

One person has commented that "God is not the author of confusion" in reference to Revelation 6:8, but the fact is that God is not the only author of the Bible, for he is only one amongst many other authors.

Also, it is a fact that God never actually wrote the Bible himself because he had always relied on humans to compile and write it.

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the actual content of the Bible is not without human error, which means that the Bible doesn't have to be one hundred percent accurate to qualify as being God's word.

This is similar to God telling Moses that he would never be allowed to enter the Promised land due to Moses' lack of faith and sin in striking the rock. Numbers 20

So, despite any human frailties, error and shortcomings, God will always accomplish his purposes, such as in this example of Joshua leading the Israelites into Canaan instead of Moses.

But what has this got to do with the Bible being God's word; more specifically, how is it even relevant to the particular example of Revelation 6:8?

Well, verse 8 has claimed that one "quarter" of humankind would be killed by the "sword, hunger, death, and wild animals".

Therefore, such a genocide would have multiple causes, but the conventional theology has assumed that each category must be either literal or symbolic, because this particular sentence cannot be an amalgam of literal and symbolic words.

Why not?

Presupposing that John the author of Revelation had the same shortcomings as any human then it's also reasonable to assume that the Bible was never written perfectly, but the actual content is still subject to the possibility of human error.

However, such minor errors within the text doesn't reflect on God being "imperfect", but it simply reflects on the fact that all humans are innately flawed, errant and imperfect.

Now, since the Bible could be fraught with errors it is therefore reasonable to suppose that Revelation 6:8 itself is also flawed, insofar as John had used an amalgam of literal and symbolic words to try to explain the multiple causes of genocide in verse 8.

Thus, it is perfectly conceivable that the "sword" is symbolic, whereas "hunger" itself is literal within the context of Revelation 6:8.

Also, "death" as another cause of genocide could also be symbolically used to represent an entire group of people as being the perpetrators of genocide.

Consequently, the Bible being the Word of God doesn't preclude the possibility of such minor errors within the text, which simply reflects on the shortcomings of human frailty, but by no means does it reflect on God being "imperfect".

By definition, God can only be perfect, inerrant, and infallible, which is why any errors contained within the Bible at all doesn't reflect on God being "imperfect", but it only reflects on the fact that such errors are due to the shortcomings of human frailty.

Please discuss.

Your premise is wrong. The beginning of the Gospel According to John clearly identifies the Word of God as the Second Person of the Trinity, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In my experience, all verses of scripture in the Bible, even those which ostensibly refer to scripture, are talking about Christ, which makes sense, because at the end of the Gospel According to Luke describes how our Lord opened the scriptures (the Old Testament at that time, but the principle also applies to the New) for the Disciples, showing them how everything in it was about him. There is no content in the canonical Bible which is not at least implicitly Christological.

Prophecies have to be entirely accurate to qualify as prophecies, but there are known imperfections as a result of scribal errors working their way into the manuscript traditions, and contradictions which are not definitively reconciled (for example, there is no universally agreed on explanation for the variance between the genealogies of our Lord in the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Luke). These errors however tend to be minor, which is why they were not corrected, expurgated from the text or otherwise dealt with.

The important thing is that Scripture in its entirety conveys the Gospel message of salvation, as well as the wisdom needed to persevere in this world, and the beauty to demonstrate the supreme love that is God.

Clare73 · May 20, 2021

Bouan Philippe said:
Does the Bible have to be perfect word for word to qualify as being God's word? . . .the fact is that God is not the only author of the Bible, for he is only one amongst many other authors.

All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Holy Spirit is the author of all Scripture, everyone else is just a penman.

Therefore, it is anything but "reasonable" to assume that the word of God is not without error.

Also, it is a fact that God never actually wrote the Bible himself because he had always relied on humans to compile and write it. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the actual content of the Bible is not without human error, which means that the Bible doesn't have to be one hundred percent accurate to qualify as being God's word.
This is similar to God telling Moses that he would never be allowed to enter the Promised land due to Moses' lack of faith and sin in striking the rock. Numbers 20
So, despite any human frailties, error and shortcomings, God will always accomplish his purposes, such as in this example of Joshua leading the Israelites into Canaan instead of Moses.
But what has this got to do with the Bible being God's word; more specifically, how is it even relevant to the particular example of Revelation 6:8?
Well, verse 8 has claimed that one "quarter" of humankind would be killed by the "sword, hunger, death, and wild animals".

Therefore, such a genocide would have multiple causes, but the conventional theology has assumed that each category must be either literal or symbolic, because this particular sentence cannot be an amalgam of literal and symbolic words.
Why not?
Presupposing that John the author of Revelation had the same shortcomings as any human then it's also reasonable to assume that the Bible was never written perfectly, but the actual content is still subject to the possibility of human error.

It is not "reasonable" to assume that the God-breathed Scriptures are flawed.

What is flawed is any argument based on that faulty assumption.

However, such minor errors within the text doesn't reflect on God being "imperfect", but it simply reflects on the fact that all humans are innately flawed, errant and imperfect.

Now, since the Bible could be fraught with errors it is therefore reasonable to suppose that Revelation 6:8 itself is also flawed, insofar as John had used an amalgam of literal and symbolic words to try to explain the multiple causes of genocide in verse 8.

Thus, it is perfectly conceivable that the "sword" is symbolic, whereas "hunger" itself is literal within the context of Revelation 6:8.

Also, "death" as another cause of genocide could also be symbolically used to represent an entire group of people as being the perpetrators of genocide.

Consequently, the Bible being the Word of God doesn't preclude the possibility of such minor errors within the text, which simply reflects on the shortcomings of human frailty, but by no means does it reflect on God being "imperfect".

By definition, God can only be perfect, inerrant, and infallible, which is why any errors contained within the Bible at all doesn't reflect on God being "imperfect", but it only reflects on the fact that such errors are due to the shortcomings of human frailty.

Please discuss.

The Liturgist · May 20, 2021

Clare73 said:
All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Holy Spirit is the author of all Scripture, everyone else is just a penman.

Therefore, it is anything but "reasonable" to assume that the word of God is not without error.

It is not "reasonable" to assume that the God-breathed Scriptures are flawed.

What is flawed is any argument based on that faulty assumption.

Inspiration means that the Holy Spirit imparted to the Prophets, Apostles, poets and historians what to write, but left it to them to write it. It is divine-human synergia, which is a model of how our salvation was procured by Jesus Christ, who was fully divine and human, and how our salvation is obtained, by cooperating with the grace of the Holy Spirit which inspires us with faith, and accepting that faith.

Clare73 · May 20, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Inspiration means that the Holy Spirit imparted to the Prophets, Apostles, poets and historians what to write, but left it to them to write it. It is divine-human synergia, which is a model of how our salvation was procured by Jesus Christ, who was fully divine and human, and how our salvation is obtained, by cooperating with the grace of the Holy Spirit which inspires us with faith, and accepting that faith.

That would be the same as theo-pneustos, right?

Bouan Philippe · May 21, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
I never said otherwise. But as I am sure you would agree, the battle would be a literal physical battle and it would not be allegorical. We have to rightly divide based on the context and basic logic. I ask the Lord for understanding on difficult verses, but I see the most important thing in Eschatology as the return of Lord and in our being ready for Him. We must be ready at any moment. That to me is the most important aspect of studying God's Word. It is know the Lord in a more intimate way in this life and in yearning to be with Him. But we have to believe. We have to believe His Word. Many Christians today are doubting God's Word or they change and or ignore certain parts of the Bible.

Obviously, I hope that you right concerning the points I have highlighted, unless there have been new developments within the last 48 hours, which might create doubt concerning the points highlighted.

Presupposing that you are still a member of the establishment and are privy to access the Intelligence gathering, how can we be so sure that Satan's false prophet (You know who!) and his minions haven't obtained crucial decisive information to prevent this battle taking place at its very inception?

Or, do you still insist that Armageddon is a literal physical battle because the enemy haven't yet discovered any crucial decisive information to turn the tide of this battle?

The Liturgist · May 21, 2021

Clare73 said:
That would be the same as theo-pneustos, right?

There is no disagreement, and it is indeed a most important article of faith, that the scriptures are God-breathed, and the prophets and apostles and other writers of scripture are thus inspired. My argument is simply this inspiration gives them a full sense of what God the Holy Spirit wishes them to write, and they then use their God-given gifts, which for each Prophet and Evangelist and Apostle and Historian are unique, as reflected in the multiplicity of languages and literary styles; stylistically, Paul, Luke, John, Mark and Matthew can be easily discerned as different writers even translated indirectly into English from the Vulgate or Peshitta. And that takes us to the issue of translations, where a risk exists of inadvertently or intentionally obscuring the message.

Bible Highlighter · May 21, 2021

Bouan Philippe said:
Obviously, I hope that you right concerning the points I have highlighted, unless there have been new developments within the last 48 hours, which might create doubt concerning the points highlighted.

Presupposing that you are still a member of the establishment and are privy to access the Intelligence gathering, how can we be so sure that Satan's false prophet (You know who!) and his minions haven't obtained crucial decisive information to prevent this battle taking place at its very inception?

Or, do you still insist that Armageddon is a literal physical battle because the enemy haven't yet discovered any crucial decisive information to turn the tide of this battle?

It's a literal battle; And the Bible says the Lord is going to win that battle. There is no chance the enemy is going to win. God can just disband the molecules in any being or person He wants. God knows all things. So yeah. No chance. God is going to win.

Rachel20 · May 22, 2021

Clare73 said:
Jesus is the word of God incarnate.
Scripture is the word of God written (Hebrews 4:12).
And there is the word of God spoken (Luke 5:1).

Jesus called Scripture the word of God in Mark 7:13, and in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus refers to the words of the penman as God's words.

Jesus believed Scripture was the word of God.

I believe scripture too as being God's words, little 'w'. But I don't worship the Bible as though that is God himself, as though God is sitting on my coffee table right now in the form of a book. So the distinction is important and the Word of God (cap 'W') is Christ alone - the incarnate God.

GOD Shines Forth! · May 22, 2021

Rachel20 said:
I believe scripture too as being God's words, little 'w'. But I don't worship the Bible as though that is God himself, as though God is sitting on my coffee table right now in the form of a book. So the distinction is important and the Word of God (cap 'W') is Christ alone - the incarnate God.

I agree.

It seems false to me that such a distinction is even required. I have never met one believer, in a variety of denominations, that believed or preached "God is sitting on my coffee table right now in the form of a book". More to the truth, it is nothing but a facile accusation against those who appeal to Scripture as God's authoritative word. Period. No special revelation given to so and so today because it’s been enscripturated.

I felt a bit silly describing in another thread how God "spoke" to me through a tree once when I was very down, and how He "waved" at my SIL through one in a bike ride (and she found herself waving back, lol). Both experiences I filtered through Scripture, which depicts God speaking to us through creation.

If I had started telling how the tree gave me doctrine and told me to write it down, you could write me off! No, we all have to circle back and back and back to the written word for sound doctrine, where it has been revealed in extremis (we just don’t like it, it’s disturbing at times, we want to hear it another way…).

Bible Highlighter · May 22, 2021

Rachel20 said:
I believe scripture too as being God's words, little 'w'. But I don't worship the Bible as though that is God himself, as though God is sitting on my coffee table right now in the form of a book. So the distinction is important and the Word of God (cap 'W') is Christ alone - the incarnate God.

I've heard many claims that KJB only folks like myself worship a book but that is really not the case. I may revere the book as holy and as the very words of God, but I do not think God is a book. God is a spirit being (John 4:24). God is triune (1 John 5:7 KJB). We obey His Word to abide in God (1 John 2:3-4), and to be accepted of Him (2 Corinthians 5:9). But we do not bow to a book as if it was literally God Himself. I have never heard of any Christian who actually thinks the Bible is literally God Himself and it needs to be worshiped. So the claims against my reverence of the KJB as being God's holy words are false.

Rachel20 · May 27, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
I may revere the book as holy and as the very words of God, but I do not think God is a book.

Right, I love the scriptures too. But they are not Christ himself. John 5:39-40

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Bible Highlighter · May 27, 2021

Rachel20 said:
Right, I love the scriptures too. But they are not Christ himself. John 5:39-40

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

God is a spirit being. I never said the Scriptures are the entirety of Christ, but the Word of God is an expression of the mind of God and His will for us. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15). How do we get His commands? With Scripture. How do we get our faith? By hearing the words of our Lord (Which comes from Scripture) (See Romans 10:17). So you are not reading John 5:39 correctly. Jesus was was not criticizing the Jews for thinking the Word is life. Peter said that Jesus had the words of eternal life (John 6:68), and our Lord’s words are immortalized in Scripture. Jesus says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63). Jesus was criticizing the Jews for not recognizing their own Messiah by the testimony of Scripture.

Bible Highlighter · May 27, 2021

Rachel20 said:
Right, I love the scriptures too. But they are not Christ himself. John 5:39-40

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Check out this CF thread here:

The Living Word & the Communicated Word.

Rachel20 · May 29, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
God is a spirit being. I never said the Scriptures are the entirety of Christ

I know, I hope I didn't imply that you did ! That would not have been my intention. It's hard to get my point across about the distinction without sounding like I'm somehow minimizing scripture, which I am not. FYI I checked out your link and loved it. Thanks for sharing.

Bible Highlighter · May 29, 2021

Rachel20 said:
I know, I hope I didn't imply that you did ! That would not have been my intention. It's hard to get my point across about the distinction without sounding like I'm somehow minimizing scripture, which I am not. FYI I checked out your link and loved it. Thanks for sharing.

I am so glad to hear it.
May the Lord's good ways always be upon you.
Have a good weekend in the Lord.

Saint Steven · Sep 12, 2021

The Liturgist said:
There is no disagreement, and it is indeed a most important article of faith, that the scriptures are God-breathed, and the prophets and apostles and other writers of scripture are thus inspired. My argument is simply this inspiration gives them a full sense of what God the Holy Spirit wishes them to write, and they then use their God-given gifts, which for each Prophet and Evangelist and Apostle and Historian are unique, as reflected in the multiplicity of languages and literary styles; stylistically, Paul, Luke, John, Mark and Matthew can be easily discerned as different writers even translated indirectly into English from the Vulgate or Peshitta. And that takes us to the issue of translations, where a risk exists of inadvertently or intentionally obscuring the message.

Thanks for your informative posts on this important subject.

Are you aware of any texts that you consider to be God-breathed that are NOT a part of our canon of scriptures? (the collected and voted-in books)

I know there is more than one canon. So that may account for a few that are not in everyone's Bibles. The Apocrypha being an obvious example. God-breathed, or no? (sadly, I haven't read it)

The Liturgist · Sep 12, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Thanks for your informative posts on this important subject.

Are you aware of any texts that you consider to be God-breathed that are NOT a part of our canon of scriptures? (the collected and voted-in books)

I know there is more than one canon. So that may account for a few that are not in everyone's Bibles. The Apocrypha being an obvious example. God-breathed, or no? (sadly, I haven't read it)

I personally am inclined to regard everything in the Greek and Russian Orthodox canon, including Psalm 151 and the Deuterocanonical Books (Tobit, Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, the Maccabees, etc), as well as everything held canonical in the Broad Canon and the Narrow Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church that pertains to the Old Testament, and in both canons one finds 1 Enoch, which I think is particularly obviously inspired because St. Jude quotes it in His epistle. I also think Psalms 152-155, which survive only in Syriac, are canonical. However, Psalms 151-155 are less important than the main Psalter of 1-150.

I think the Septuagint, or LXX as it is abbreviated, is preferable to the Masoretic, or MT, in most cases, particularly the Psalter (Psalms) in the case of Psalm 1:12, where the Masoretic text has a Christological reading less clear in the Septuagint, and Psalm 23, which in the English language was particularly exquisitely translated in the KJV. However, the Septuagint, as a rule, makes Christological readings more apparent than the Masoretic, and the Psalter is no exception; there are about a dozen references to our Lord more obvious in the LXX Psalter than the MT Psalter. And consider this verse, from Psalm 95 v. 5 in the LXX “The gods of the gentiles are demons” vs Psalm 96 v 5, the corresponding verse in the MT Psalter (which combines and splits apart some Psalms so the numbers are out of sync), which reads “The gods of the gentiles are idols.” I think that the Masoretic reading is obvious, whereas the Septuagint reading points to an extremely important spiritual reality about Paganism and false religions.

Also Daniel and Esther in the Septuagint are much more compelling and spiritual.

But I don’t regard anything else canonical; I am not even sure about Psalms 152-155, but they are likeable and not heretical and I for one would enjoy hearing them.

Some people wanted to include 1 Clement in the Bible; it is a crucial Patristic text and it could well be inspired, but it did not meet the Patristic criteria for New Testament canonicity, in that the New Testament can contain only authentic writings of the Apostles or Evangelists who were recording the Apostolic kerygma (for example, St. Mark, a disciple of St. Peter, and the owner of the Cenacle, based his Gospel on the Petrine narrative, and St. Luke, a disciple of St. Paul and a physician, based his account on the Pauline narrative and the narratives of other Apostles he had access to such as St. Peter and St. John, all three of whom were alive in a region of the Eastern Roman Empire stretching from the Levant to Rome, particularly the coast of Asia Minor (home of Ephesus, Antioch, and other important cities).

Fervent · Sep 12, 2021

Holding off on Revelation 6:8, the Bible is God's word the same way faithful preachers deliver God's word each Sunday from the pulpit. It is truth through personality. Every human author put their particular thumb-print on the text, their theological views and experiences, their education, their special interests, all of these were selected by God for the message they were to deliver. But God is the one who gave the message, it is what He wanted to convey exactly how He wanted to convey it. When it comes to interpreting it, this requires us to consider each book individually. Reading a Pauline epistle? Expect strong rhetoric, polemics, tangents, and tight logical constructions. A Johannine text? Expect it to be informed by some heresy that is being combatted, to appeal to the emotions, and to be fairly linear. So what does this mean for Revelation 6:8? Given the linearity of John, we must look for the line he is moving in. The line starts with the letters to the 7 churches, with the vision that follows connecting to one of the churches. The question is which church corresponds with this part of the vision?

Fervent · Sep 12, 2021

d taylor said:
Show where is there a comma inserted ( i only place in bold the area of the verse i was speaking about)

וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד
אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה

אֶת- in אֶת-יְהוָה is a preposition, which in this case is best translated "of" as an indication of origin(aka from). There's no need for a comma, as Hebrew doesn't have punctuation marks like commas. The expert you quoted seems to have made the simple mistake of confusing the preposition for the direct object marker, but the context and structure of the sentence demands the preposition.

The Bible is God's word, but what is God's word?

Blood-bought

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Blood-bought

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Blood-bought

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

You can call me Steve

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads