Does opinion superceed Scripture

[davedjy]

It's not. What constitutes a sin doesn't change. One's interpretation of something doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it is true. There is still, as always, one right answer about what sin actually is, and what sin actually isn't. Just as fundamentalists not accepting evolution doesn't change the fact that it occurs, someone not accepting that sin works as it says it does doesn't change how sin works.

There are lots of interpretations out there. One of them is correct (or closest to being correct).

Not really. All we have to do is take a part the original Hebrew and Greek text to see what was being said.

 

[davedjy]

So the bible isn't the word of God but a means for communication about the word of God, just as the Apostles were.

Yes, but do you obey it as God said it? that is the real point!

I'm not sure how you think posting a set a verses that are not about the bible supports your point.

The Bible was not complete...spoken words we recorded, so at that time they didn't have "all" the Words...nonetheless, we obey all of them like they are one and the same as God "said" it himself.

.

"Scripture is God-breathed", so is creation, so is human life, so is all who have received the Holy Spirit. That's not the same as being the Word of God.

Wrong. There is a distinction. Creation is God's Work not written Word. I already proved it...we follow it as God said it, because He did! He choose the 12 Apostles to preach His message. Furthermore, Jesus' came to earth and He spoke words that were recorded, hence the Scriptures. Those words are God's Word too, unless you don't believe He is God!

Again, it's not actually talking about the bible but something much more suble than that - the collective teaching and conversations of the people of God, some of which are recorded within the bible. The word of God is something far bigger than the bible.

This is extremely false. We follow "this" as God said it Himself. I already showed the distinction, I don't understand why you don't see them as one and the same. His Commandments are His Word!

 

[Joykins]

"Unfortunately" there isn't a proof-text for everything, and the Bible was never intended to be a "user's manual" or "Everything Book." People who grew up in a culture where it's treated as such are sadly too often ill-equipped to deal with moral questions.

For example, most, (although it seems to be dwindling) Christians are pro-life. They use various verses to "prove" that abortion is wrong. Now, I'm pro-life myself, but there's no "proof text" that shows abortion is wrong without a shadow of a doubt.

We can derive Biblical PRINCIPLES from scripture to make a case for certain morals, but very often, Christians are left scrambling with theological duct tape and a lot of odd verses to prove things.

I agree. The Bible is the primary source and once you've steeped yourself in it and its principles, together with prayer and involvement in Christian community, you are going to be able to make better decisions based on that.

 

[ebia]

Not really. All we have to do is take a part the original Hebrew and Greek text to see what was being said.

Without understanding the context in which something is written one will often misunderstand what is meant by any text. The text itself isn't enough as the meaning of any text is dependent upon it's context, the culture and circumstances in which it was written, etc.

 

[ebia]

Yes, but do you obey it as God said it? that is the real point!

God didn't say it, so I can't answer the question.

The bible isn't a record of stuff God said (for the most part). It's a record of people's encounters and understanding of God, through which God continues to speak.

The Bible was not complete...spoken words we recorded, so at that time they didn't have "all" the Words...nonetheless, we obey all of them like they are one and the same as God "said" it himself

Most of

Wrong. There is a distinction. Creation is God's Work not written Word

Creation is the product of the Word of God (ie the 2nd person of the Trinity) spoken into existance and through which God still speaks. Like the bible. God's Word is not limited to words in the narrow human language sense. If you take a number of different meanings of (say) the word "word" and conflagrate them you will end up with some very mixed up logic.

I already proved it.

You haven't proved anything.

we follow it as God said it, because He did! He choose the 12 Apostles to preach His message. Furthermore, Jesus' came to earth and He spoke words that were recorded, hence the Scriptures. Those words are God's Word too, unless you don't believe He is God!

There is a difference between saying something are words spoken by God and something being "The Word of God". Furthermore, only a very small percentage of the bible is made up by words purporting to have been spoken by God.

This is extremely false. We follow "this"

You can follow a bible if you like. I follow Christ.

as God said it Himself.

No he didn't. He "God-breathed" it. That he "said" all of it is an opinion, and not one supported by scripture.

I already showed the distinction,

You haven't shown anything. A few irrelevent bible verses ripped out of context and misinterpreted.

 

[Dannager]

Without understanding the context in which something is written one will often misunderstand what is meant by any text. The text itself isn't enough as the meaning of any text is dependent upon it's context, the culture and circumstances in which it was written, etc.

Exactly. The original text will tell you what it says, but not what it means.

 

[davedjy]

God didn't say it, so I can't answer the question.

Well, if everyone used the excuse everytime, then I guess they could do whatever they want.

The bible isn't a record of stuff God said (for the most part). It's a record of people's encounters and understanding of God, through which God continues to speak.

The 10 commandments are merely an encounter?

Creation is the product of the Word of God (ie the 2nd person of the Trinity) spoken into existance and through which God still speaks. Like the bible. God's Word is not limited to words in the narrow human language sense. If you take a number of different meanings of (say) the word "word" and conflagrate them you will end up with some very mixed up logic.

Creation and the written Word are still two different things.

You haven't proved anything.

Well, it depends on the definition of "prove", but yeah, I believe I did.

There is a difference between saying something are words spoken by God and something being "The Word of God". Furthermore, only a very small percentage of the bible is made up by words purporting to have been spoken by God.

What verses do you have that only part of it is what we are supposed to take is spoken by God or not? Are you only sayinig the Word of God is the verses where Jesus spoke? That isn't supported by the Catholic or Protestant faith, otherwise we might as well cut out a lot of the Bible.

You can follow a bible if you like. I follow Christ.

Where did you learn about the 10 Commandments? Where did you learn to follow Christ? Where did you get that from? How did you learn about Christ to begin with? I don't "follow the Bible", I follow Christ from what I learned about in the Bible, which I believe are His Words written through Jesus and the Apostles. It seems like your supposed theory makes less and less sense.

No he didn't. He "God-breathed" it. That he "said" all of it is an opinion, and not one supported by scripture.

An opinion? It is God-breated, which is God-inspired...which means it came from what God wanted to speak about through man? Do you have a verse to support it's only an opinion?

You haven't shown anything. A few irrelevent bible verses ripped out of context and misinterpreted.

Actually, they were all in context. Everything I learn about in my faith exists in the Bible. We don't follow the Bible, we follow what the Bible teaches, but I believe they are the Words of God, because that is what the Scriptures say. People may choose to misinterpret them, maybe we don't know all the meanings, that doesn't change their validity. You have failed to show what you are saying, because what you are saying isn't backed by scripture.

 

[ebia]

Well, if everyone used the excuse everytime, then I guess they could do whatever they want.

They could, but that isn't evidence that he did say "it", and I'm not using it as an excuse for anything.

The 10 commandments are merely an encounter?

I wasn't addressing the specifics of the 10 Commandments but the more general issue. And since when did an encounter with God deserve the adjective 'merely'?

Creation and the written Word are still two different things.

Different in some aspects, similar in others. Both are equally God breathed. Neither is truely "the Word of God".

Well, it depends on the definiton of "prove", but yeah, I believe I did.

People believe all sorts of things.

What verses do you have that only part of it is what we are supposed to take is spoken by God or not?

Yours is the positive claim - the onus of proof is upon you.

Are you only sayinig the Word of God is the verses where Jesus spoke?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying none of it is really "The Word of God". Some of it (but not much) is directly quoted from God, and the whole of it is something through which the Word of God speaks to us.

That isn't supported by the Catholic or Protestant faith, otherwise we might as well cut out a lot of the Bible.

It's value lies not in whether God said it, but whether God speaks through it.

Where did you learn about the 10 Commandments?

Probably off a church wall. I don't rightly remember.

Where did you learn to follow Christ?

Through the people around me, particular one minister.

Where did you get that from?

The bible played a part. So did people, the church, worship, prayer, the majesty of creation, ...
I'm not at all sure the bible was the most important of those by a long shot. The bible is useful - I'm not saying it isn't, but that doesn't make it the Word of God (TM).

An opinion? It is God-breated, which is God-inspired...which means it came from what God wanted to speak about through man? Do you have a verse to support it's only an opinion?

Perhaps, but an opinion as valid as your opinion.

Actually, they were all in context.

Yeh. Right.

Everything I learn about in my faith exists in the Bible.

Clearly not, since part of your faith is that God wrote the bible and that isn't in the bible.

We don't follow the Bible, we follow what the Bible teaches, but I believe they are the Words of God, because that is what the Scriptures say.

But they don't. Time and time again people claim this, but the scripture verses provided to support it don't actually say that.

There isn't a single passage in the bible that says that God wrote the bible, or that the bible is the Word of God (TM).

 

[davedjy]

They could, but that isn't evidence that he did say "it", and I'm not using it as an excuse for anything.

I don't think you really get the point of following what the Scriptures say. Are we following man or are we following God by following what the Scriptures say?

I wasn't addressing the specifics of the 10 Commandments but the more general issue. And since when did an encounter with God deserve the adjective 'merely'?

You said the Bible isn't the Word of God. Should we just choose things out of there that are and aren't? The whole point of the 12 Apostles were to be used by God to speak out the Scriptures.

Different in some aspects, similar in others. Both are equally God breathed. Neither is truely "the Word of God".

People believe all sorts of things.

Yours is the positive claim - the onus of proof is upon you.

If you are Catholic or Christian, the Bible IS the Word of God, hence it is called that.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying none of it is really "The Word of God". Some of it (but not much) is directly quoted from God, and the whole of it is something through which the Word of God speaks to us.

I don't get your distinction. Either He insipired someone to say it or He didn't.

It's value lies not in whether God said it, but whether God speaks through it.

If God inspired it to be said, it is still His Word, since his truths and the will He has for man are in the scriptures.

Probably off a church wall. I don't rightly remember.


Through the people around me, particular one minister.

Yeah, you are beating around the bush. It all goes back to the Scriptures.

The bible played a part. So did people, the church, worship, prayer, the majesty of creation, ...
I'm not at all sure the bible was the most important of those by a long shot. The bible is useful - I'm not saying it isn't, but that doesn't make it the Word of God (TM).

LOL..The trademark symbol was not around back then. God is not a company.

Perhaps, but an opinion as valid as your opinion.

Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the "word of God," not of men:

1 Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
(KJV)

If that doesn't explain it, I don't know how you can be helped.

Yeh. Right.

Saying I misinterpreted something doesn't prove me wrong. You are not showing how I "misquoted" the verses.

Clearly not, since part of your faith is that God wrote the bible and that isn't in the bible.

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But they don't. Time and time again people claim this, but the scripture verses provided to support it don't actually say that.

You keep making vague quotes, and you are not specific on what it actually is saying, then. What are the verses saying, if not what I am using to support it?

There isn't a single passage in the bible that says that God wrote the bible, or that the bible is the Word of God (TM).

Most religions have religious texts they view as sacred. Many religions and spiritual movements believe that their sacred texts are wholly divine or spiritually inspired in origin. Monotheistic religions often view their sacred texts as the "Word of God", often feeling that the texts are inspired by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_text

Seems like there is no difference between the two. If something was "inspired", even by the Encyclopedia's standards of what the common Christian faiths believe...it is the Word of God.

 

[ebia]

I don't think you really get the point of following what the Scriptures say. Are we following man or are we following God by following what the Scriptures say?

Potentially either.

You said the Bible isn't the Word of God. Should we just choose things out of there that are and aren't?

No. That's not what I am saying.

The whole point of the 12 Apostles were to be used by God to speak out the Scriptures.

This sentence doesn't parse, and I don't want to mis-guess what you meant it to say.

If you are Catholic or Christian, ...

Catholics are Christian.

...the Bible IS the Word of God, hence it is called that.

So you keep saying. I don't agree. The bible is frequently called "God's word" or "the word of God" (usually with a lower-case w) which is an ok shorthand as long as one doesn't read too much into it as it isn't strictly accurate.

I don't get your distinction. Either He insipired someone to say it or He didn't.

Your understanding of inspiration is insufficiently subtle. Yes, the biblical authors were inspired. No, God did not write the bible.

If God inspired it to be said, it is still His Word, since his truths and the will He has for man are in the scriptures.

That would be an ok (not great, but ok) understanding if you then didn't go and read too much into it. Scripture itself isn't the point - it's just a medium. The message is what God can transmit to us through it (and other media).

Yeah, you are beating around the bush. It all goes back to the Scriptures.

No it doesn't - it all goes back through people to God.

LOL..The trademark symbol was not around back then.

Neither did capitalisation, punctuation or word breaks. My using it conveys a meaning to you better than I could easly do otherwise.

Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the "word of God," not of men:

1 Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
(KJV)

13 And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that,in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now atwork in you who believe.http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30555753#_ftn1

Doesn't sound like Paul is calling Scripture the word of God to me.

Saying I misinterpreted something doesn't prove me wrong. You are not showing how I "misquoted" the verses.

I believe I addressed each one when originally posted. If I missed any please refer me to the particular post or quote and I'll happly redress my omission.

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hardly says 'scripture is the Word of God', does it. Can you please stop posting verses you assume are talking about scripture and restrict yourself to ones that do so, and call it 'the word of God', unambiguously.

You keep making vague quotes, and you are not specific on what it actually is saying, then. What are the verses saying, if not what I am using to support it?

I don't need to provide an alternative interpretation, to refute yours.

Most religions have religious texts they view as sacred. Many religions and spiritual movements believe that their sacred texts are wholly divine or spiritually inspired in origin. Monotheistic religions often view their sacred texts as the "Word of God", often feeling that the texts are inspired by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_text

Seems like there is no difference between the two. If something was "inspired", even by the Encyclopedia's standards of what the common Christian faiths believe...it is the Word of God.

Inspired is not the same as written by God, whatever you may read into a wikipedia article.

 

[davedjy]

This sentence doesn't parse, and I don't want to mis-guess what you meant it to say.

Sorry, it should've read: The whole point of the 12 Apostles was, that they were used by God to speak out the Scriptures.

Catholics are Christian.

Yes, I am not saying they aren't...Catholics and Protestants, are what I am referring to.

So you keep saying. I don't agree. The bible is frequently called "God's word" or "the word of God" (usually with a lower-case w) which is an ok shorthand as long as one doesn't read too much into it as it isn't strictly accurate.

OK is actually supposed to be all uppercase...but I'm not gonna argue capitalization.

Your understanding of inspiration is insufficiently subtle. Yes, the biblical authors were inspired. No, God did not write the bible.

Did He use man to speak His actual words as a vessel through? isn't that was "God inspired" words are?

Neither did capitalisation, punctuation or word breaks. My using it conveys a meaning to you better than I could easly do otherwise.

That didn't really answer my question. Trademarks are used for companies...is God a company? you keep referring to it needing some Trademark or whatever.

Doesn't sound like Paul is calling Scripture the word of God to me.

13? And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that,in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now atwork in you who believe.

It is saying that even though a human spoke the Word it is to be received as a Word by God!

I believe I addressed each one when originally posted. If I missed any please refer me to the particular post or quote and I'll happly redress my omission.

There are too many to count. You take one of my quotes and say "that is a misquote of those verses", but you fail to show me what those verrses mean, since I said they are talking about the Word/Scriptures of God.

Hardly says 'scripture is the Word of God', does it. Can you please stop posting verses you assume are talking about scripture and restrict yourself to ones that do so, and call it 'the word of God', unambiguously.

It says study the word of God...what are they supposed to study, then?

I don't need to provide an alternative interpretation, to refute yours.

To refute my point, you should have a counterpoint or another explanation, did you miss that part of debating something?

Inspired is not the same as written by God, whatever you may read into a wikipedia article.

*sighs* That is what Protestants AND Catholics believe! It is merely showing what they are saying.
Do a google search Word of God, and see how many times the Scriptures come up on websites calling it the Scriptures the "Word of God".

 

[artybloke]

Did He use man to speak His actual words as a vessel through? isn't that was "God inspired" words are?

No. That would make the writers robots not human beings. Their experience of God inspired them to write.

*sighs* That is what Protestant AND Catholics believe!

No it is not. Nobody but a tiny fringe believe that God "wrote" the Bible.

 

[davedjy]

No. That would make the writers robots not human beings. Their experience of God inspired them to write.

Were they relaying back an actual message from God or not?

No it is not. Nobody but a tiny fringe believe that God "wrote" the Bible.

I never said that I mean He personally "penned" it out. It's that they were His words he used through the Apostles.

 

[artybloke]

Were they relaying back an actual message from God or not?

What, did they hear a voice in their head and write down what it said? No. Did they percieve through their worship & experience some great truths about God? Yes.

 

[savedandhappy1]

People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6:

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
​

God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.
Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

 

[127Rockledge]

SavedandHappy - Where did you get that info?

God says not to add to his word. Do we assume his word is the bible and only the bible? There is no listing of books/texts/essays/poems in the bible which tell which books/texts/essays/poems should be included. So which bible is correct? Should protestants open themselves up to the apocrypha?

Is the apocrypha God-breathed?

 

[ebia]

Sorry, it should've read: The whole point of the 12 Apostles was, that they were used by God to speak out the Scriptures.

I don't agree.

Yes, I am not saying they aren't...Catholics and Protestants, are what I am referring to.

Ok

Did He use man to speak His actual words as a vessel through? isn't that was "God inspired" words are?

No. As I keep saying, inspiration is more subtle than that.

That didn't really answer my question. Trademarks are used for companies...is God a company? you keep referring to it needing some Trademark or whatever.

Never mind. Like a joke, if it needs explaining it isn't worth it.

It is saying that even though a human spoke the Word it is to be received as a Word by God!

What God speaks into our hearts is (hopefully) the Word of God. It's not saying that the words read out of a bible or spoken by a person are themselves the word of God.

There are too many to count. You take one of my quotes and say "that is a misquote of those verses", but you fail to show me what those verrses mean, since I said they are talking about the Word/Scriptures of God

You are the one using them as proof - the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that they are talking about what you claim they are talking about. Saying 'these are talking about scripture' isn't sufficient. It needs to be demonstrable from the text.

It says study the word of God...what are they supposed to study, then?

Have I missed a bit somewhere? Posting a verse that says 'study the word of God' would put you on stronger ground than we have seen so far, I don't think you have. It's not what 2 Tim 2:15 says, anyway.

To refute my point, you should have a counterpoint or another explanation, did you miss that part of debating something?

This is not a formal debate, by a long shot.

*sighs* That is what Protestants AND Catholics believe! It is merely showing what they are saying.
Do a google search Word of God, and see how many times the Scriptures come up on websites calling it the Scriptures the "Word of God".

Like I said, lot's of Christians use the phrase loosly (even I do sometimes). The problem comes when people draw conclusions from that.

 

[ebia]

SavedandHappy - Where did you get that info?

God says not to add to his word. Do we assume his word is the bible and only the bible? There is no listing of books/texts/essays/poems in the bible which tell which books/texts/essays/poems should be included. So which bible is correct? Should protestants open themselves up to the apocrypha?

Is the apocrypha God-breathed?

Indeed. The biggest problem with Sola Scriptura is that it isn't itself scriptural.

 

[savedandhappy1]

SavedandHappy - Where did you get that info?

God says not to add to his word. Do we assume his word is the bible and only the bible? There is no listing of books/texts/essays/poems in the bible which tell which books/texts/essays/poems should be included. So which bible is correct? Should protestants open themselves up to the apocrypha?

Is the apocrypha God-breathed?

Mark 7:6-16
6. He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Proverbs 30:5-6
5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

So we have no way of knowing if any of the Bible is what God wanted us to know?

So I guess that would mean that maybe Jesus isn't the Son of God, and His death, burial and resurrection either didn't happen or it doesn't matter that it happened because that may not be the Saviour we need?

I guess I just don't understand how anyone can believe some of it, but not the whole. Without the whole to show us ............ well I just don't understand.
​

 

[savedandhappy1]

Indeed. The biggest problem with Sola Scriptura is that it isn't itself scriptural.

Then please show me the scriptures that says to only believe Matt. ?:?-? and don't take Matt. ?:?-? literally or I didn't really mean for Matt. ?:?-? to say that, so ignore it, because it doesn't have anything to do with your generation. Tell me why we even have the Bible if it isn't the Word of God, and what are we to do with the scriptures that say to use it for teaching, correcting, rebuke, reproof?