Faith in the living, resurrected Word (while the scriptures are only 50% historically accurate).

[Hillsage]

Do you believe that the scribes in that time wrote things to accommodate the way they lived? Picked and chose what they wanted to write to make it easier to live and not be disobedient?

I think that the scribes from every Jewish Denomination tweaked whatever their denomination believed, same as today. Back then they had Deuteronomists and Yahwehists and Masorectics for denominations during the historical writing of the OT. Then in the 400 years of no prophetic words from God the denominational Pharisees and the Sadducees came into religious influence and error. Even Jesus jumped on them for their failure as to their doctrinal errors.

Just wondering...

And when ‘wondering’ gives way to ‘seeking the truth’, no matter where the Spirit leads, we should hopefully come to having ‘all the more reason’ to make sure we truly worship the ‘God of the Bible’ and not the ‘Bible of God’ , as so many seem to do today.

 

[Hillsage]

I agree.
But the OP question is about inerrancy and faith.
In this case we have two different recollections of the same event.
This is only natural and I agree that it basically isn't a big deal.
But doesn't a claim of inerrancy mean the text is supernatural? (not natural)

No. Here’s a definition of biblical inerrancy; Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";......or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.“.


I personally have a problem believing either definition.

 

[Saint Steven]

No. Here’s a definition of biblical inerrancy; Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";......or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.“.


I personally have a problem believing either definition.

Well...

Many who hold to inerrancy, do so with the English translations, no mention of "the original manuscripts". Just to be clear, I agree that any discussion on inerrancy SHOULD focus on the original manuscripts instead, but...

I'm so tired of posters that claim their opinion about what the Bible says is "the Word of God..." ("... so take it up with Him.")

And in this case, do the two stories of the withered fig tree agree or disagree in the original manuscripts? (thus affirming anything that is "contrary to fact")

Further complicated by the fact of uncertain authorship. Even the book titles may be in error.

 

[Hillsage]

Well...

Many who hold to inerrancy, do so with the English translations, no mention of "the original manuscripts". Just to be clear, I agree that any discussion on inerrancy SHOULD focus on the original manuscripts instead, but...

I'm so tired of posters that claim their opinion about what the Bible says is "the Word of God..." ("... so take it up with Him.")

And in this case, do the two stories of the withered fig tree agree or disagree in the original manuscripts? (thus affirming anything that is "contrary to fact")

I think holding up the Bible and declaring IT is the “word of God” has simply deceived people into never knowing that it is the ‘spoken’ word/rhema that is needed to bring one to faith and life. And not ‘the bible’ Or the ‘black letter’ of “the law of liberty” written on the white pages of the book...or bible of God.

 

[Justin Robinson]

Oh my... - lol
Don't be trippin' -- keep it real, Dawg.

pardon my slang

 

[Saint Steven]

pardon my slang

No problem. (gasp)
However, I was genuinely stunned. It took me by surprise. - lol
I had to do some quick research on Ebonics to compose a fitting response.

I notice a recording studio monitor behind you in the photo.
Do you work with sound engineering?

 

[Justin Robinson]

No problem. (gasp)
However, I was genuinely stunned. It took me by surprise. - lol
I had to do some quick research on Ebonics to compose a fitting response.

I notice a recording studio monitor behind you in the photo.
Do you work with sound engineering?

Yes I do. I also have a podcast that I just started for men. Audio is a passion of mine for sure.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Salvation does not depend on the Bible. I could lead someone to Christ without ever using a Bible verse.

Nevertheless, the Bible is the word of God and reveals the truth about God. Thus, the Bible and salvation are two separate issues.

 

[Saint Steven]

I personally have a problem believing either definition.

Okay. - lol
You posted the definitions in the hope of correcting my misunderstanding of inerrancy,
but then end by saying you don't believe the definitions either. Do you have a formed position on this? ("No.", is an acceptable answer.)

Hillsage said: ↑
No. Here’s a definition of biblical inerrancy; Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";......or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.“.

I personally have a problem believing either definition.

 

[Saint Steven]

Salvation does not depend on the Bible. I could lead someone to Christ without ever using a Bible verse.

Nevertheless, the Bible is the word of God and reveals the truth about God. Thus, the Bible and salvation are two separate issues.

Is the Bible in fact "the word of God", or is it a book that CONTAINS the word of God?

 

[Peter J Barban]

Is the Bible in fact "the word of God", or is it a book that CONTAINS the word of God?

I prefer to say that the Bible is the word of God.

 

[Saint Steven]

I prefer to say that the Bible is the word of God.

Three questions:
1) Are there "errors" in the word of God? (the Bible)
2) If so, what effect does that have on the over all message?
3) How do you feel about "extrabiblical" revelation?

 

[Hillsage]

I actually started to answer this before the family opening presents started, and before Steven had even posted. OH well, here's my POV anyway.

Salvation does not depend on the Bible. I could lead someone to Christ without ever using a Bible verse.

I agree. Especially since a 'sinner's prayer' isn't even biblical to begin with.

Nevertheless, the Bible is the word of God and reveals the truth about God. Thus, the Bible and salvation are two separate issues.

I’m of a different persuasion. The OP question is talking about the “The living resurrected word versus the 50% correct written scriptures”. And for me there is no "living resurrected word" unless you are translating "Word" as LOGOS. Because Jesus's BODY was the LOGOS/Word and not the RHEMA/word. And it was the body of Jesus which died and was resurrected, not his soul or spirit.

JOH 1:1 In the beginning was the Word/LOGOS, and the Word/LOGOS was with God, and the Word/LOGOS was God.

JOH 1:14 And the Word/LOGOS was made flesh/SARX, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

4561 sarx: flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e.(strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extens.) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit],

You are younger-ish in your picture. I grew up in a little bit 'older school' before the bible became "THE WORD OF GOD". I don't remember Billy Graham ever saying anything when he held up the BOOK but; "And the BIBLE says." I 'think' it became the "Word of God" in the Charismatic Jesus revolution of the early 70's. And all you have to do to find out how scholarly Fundamentalists think Charismatics are, is be here at CF.....for a 'minute'. Anyway, people actually hearing the dead letter of the book come to be a "living word", are the ones who started declaring the WHOLE BOOK to be the WORD OF GOD. And the Fundamentalists followed us Charismatics in that error. IMO, IMO IMHO.

JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words/RHEMA that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

JOH 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words/RHEMA that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

IOW I think the RHEMA/WORD is the only living WORD OF GOD from 'Christ and the Father'. I'll just end with a picture painted for me one time by 'someone'. It was the 3 wise men coming to see Jesus. And the blushing young mother, filled with joy, ran to the crib. She pulled the covers off and said; "LOOK....a BOOK!!"

I'm not going to change your opinion, but hopefully give you something to think about. But for me personally, if I say the 'word of God' it is almost always an accidental slip based upon years of saying it that way. Years before studying enough to find out that man has touched too much for it to be a correct 'phrase' for me anymore. I don't agree with the OP that it's 50% wrong, but then, how much has to be wrong for the statement saying the BIBLE is the WORD OF GOD...to be wrong?

 

[Saint Steven]

Jesus's BODY was the LOGOS/Word and not the RHEMA/word. And it was the body of Jesus which died and was resurrected, not his soul or spirit.

JOH 1:1 In the beginning was the Word/LOGOS, and the Word/LOGOS was with God, and the Word/LOGOS was God.

JOH 1:14 And the Word/LOGOS was made flesh/SARX, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

4561 sarx: flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e.(strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extens.) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit],

This makes it so clear. Thanks.

 

[Saint Steven]

I actually started to answer this before the family opening presents started, and before Steven had even posted. OH well, here's my POV anyway.

Don't forget to reply to my post when you are able. Thanks.

Just to be clear, the post about biblical inerrancy. (post #89)

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Salvation does not depend on the Bible. I could lead someone to Christ without ever using a Bible verse.

Nevertheless, the Bible is the word of God and reveals the truth about God. Thus, the Bible and salvation are two separate issues.

IMPOSSIBLE.

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not by a seed that perishes but by one that cannot perish—by the living and everlasting word of God.

hope this helps !!!

 

[public hermit]

IMPOSSIBLE.

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not by a seed that perishes but by one that cannot perish—by the living and everlasting word of God.

hope this helps !!!

The "Word' in reference there is Christ, right? dia logou...theou (by the Word of God) It's the genitive form of logos. In verse 25 it's rhema both times.

 

[Saint Steven]

IMPOSSIBLE.

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not by a seed that perishes but by one that cannot perish—by the living and everlasting word of God.

hope this helps !!!

It doesn't mean that "word of God" is the bible.
A book made of paper is not "living and everlasting".
We are NOT "born again" by the bible, but by Christ.

3056 lógos (from 3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.

 

[public hermit]

I actually started to answer this before the family opening presents started, and before Steven had even posted. OH well, here's my POV anyway.


I agree. Especially since a 'sinner's prayer' isn't even biblical to begin with.


I’m of a different persuasion. The OP question is talking about the “The living resurrected word versus the 50% correct written scriptures”. And for me there is no "living resurrected word" unless you are translating "Word" as LOGOS. Because Jesus's BODY was the LOGOS/Word and not the RHEMA/word. And it was the body of Jesus which died and was resurrected, not his soul or spirit.

JOH 1:1 In the beginning was the Word/LOGOS, and the Word/LOGOS was with God, and the Word/LOGOS was God.

JOH 1:14 And the Word/LOGOS was made flesh/SARX, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

4561 sarx: flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e.(strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extens.) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit],

You are younger-ish in your picture. I grew up in a little bit 'older school' before the bible became "THE WORD OF GOD". I don't remember Billy Graham ever saying anything when he held up the BOOK but; "And the BIBLE says." I 'think' it became the "Word of God" in the Charismatic Jesus revolution of the early 70's. And all you have to do to find out how scholarly Fundamentalists think Charismatics are, is be here at CF.....for a 'minute'. Anyway, people actually hearing the dead letter of the book come to be a "living word", are the ones who started declaring the WHOLE BOOK to be the WORD OF GOD. And the Fundamentalists followed us Charismatics in that error. IMO, IMO IMHO.

JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words/RHEMA that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

JOH 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words/RHEMA that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

IOW I think the RHEMA/WORD is the only living WORD OF GOD from 'Christ and the Father'. I'll just end with a picture painted for me one time by 'someone'. It was the 3 wise men coming to see Jesus. And the blushing young mother, filled with joy, ran to the crib. She pulled the covers off and said; "LOOK....a BOOK!!"

I'm not going to change your opinion, but hopefully give you something to think about. But for me personally, if I say the 'word of God' it is almost always an accidental slip based upon years of saying it that way. Years before studying enough to find out that man has touched too much for it to be a correct 'phrase' for me anymore. I don't agree with the OP that it's 50% wrong, but then, how much has to be wrong for the statement saying the BIBLE is the WORD OF GOD...to be wrong?

Thank you for this post. Very helpful. In defense of the OP, I just threw 50% out there for the sake of argument. I have no idea what an exact percentage would be.

Concerning logos and rhema. It is clear in the prologue of John that Logos refers only to the Incarnate Word of God, and not Jesus's sayings nor the scriptures. I capitalized it in the title of the thread in hopes it would be recognized as referring to Christ. That being said, the waters get murky once you begin to look at other passages, 1 Peter 1:23-25 being a prime example where both logos (vs.23) and rhema (vs.25 x2) are used (seemingly?) interchangeably.

One way to read that passage might be that vs. 23 uses logos and refers to Christ (i.e. Christ is the living and enduring Word of God). The first use of rhema in vs. 25 is a translation of the Hebrew dbr (the Septuagint would use either logos/rhema). The second use of rhema in vs. 25 is in reference to the gospel, "That word is the good news that was announced to you." Of course that "good news" is Jesus Christ; however, rhema is appropriate there in that rhema often refers to a saying or a teaching. The gospel is the saying or teaching about Christ. Whatever the case, in none of those instances is the reference the bible.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Well...

Many who hold to inerrancy, do so with the English translations, no mention of "the original manuscripts". Just to be clear, I agree that any discussion on inerrancy SHOULD focus on the original manuscripts instead, but...

I'm so tired of posters that claim their opinion about what the Bible says is "the Word of God..." ("... so take it up with Him.")

And in this case, do the two stories of the withered fig tree agree or disagree in the original manuscripts? (thus affirming anything that is "contrary to fact")

Further complicated by the fact of uncertain authorship. Even the book titles may be in error.

Wrong just like Jesus taught about the parable of the soils regarding salvation and the word of God(Scripture) Peter here is saying the same thing, its the gospel message concerning Christ that brings salvation.


hope this helps !!!