The Word of God (or not?)

[St_Worm2]

Greetings: In another thread called, "The Word of God" (right here on the Christian Scriptures board), GraceandPeace wrote:

Scripture refers to Jesus as "the Word" in John 1:1.

Christians often also refer to the Bible as "the Word" for various reasons - from considering it to be infallible & inerrant word from God in every regard (not my view), to considering the texts as inspired by God though not necessarily inerrant, etc.

I didn't want to take SkunkBig's "The Word of God" thread down a rabbit trail it wasn't meant to follow, so I started this thread instead. GraceandPeace wrote what you see above, and while I am not in disagreement with what she said, I am wondering how she (and many others who believe what she does) decide which parts of the Bible are inspired by God, and which parts aren't ..

Thanks!

--David

 

[childofdust]

Greetings: In another thread called, "The Word of God" (right here on the Christian Scriptures board), GraceandPeace wrote:



I didn't want to take SkunkBig's "The Word of God" thread down a rabbit trail it wasn't meant to follow, so I started this thread instead. GraceandPeace wrote what you see above, and while I am not in disagreement with what she said, I am wondering how she (and many others who believe what she does) decide which parts of the Bible are inspired by God, and which parts aren't ..

Thanks!

--David

Hi.

My answer: the same way you do that with something else.

Test all things. Reject what is false and evil. Hold on to the good.

Simple

If you're dealing with prophecy, one way to do that is to apply the rule given by Moses: If a prophet speaks and that thing doesn't happen, such a prophet has spoken from themself, not from God.

Easy

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi.

My answer: the same way you do that with something else.

Test all things. Reject what is false and evil. Hold on to the good.

Simple

If you're dealing with prophecy, one way to do that is to apply the rule given by Moses: If a prophet speaks and that thing doesn't happen, such a prophet has spoken from themself, not from God.

Easy

So which parts of the Bible do you consider to be false (or, at least, not inspired by God) and why .. IOW, how do you tell which parts of the Bible are from God (and therefore binding upon our hearts) and which parts aren't ..

Thanks!

--David

 

[childofdust]

So which parts of the Bible do you consider to be false (or, at least, not inspired by God) and why .. IOW, how do you tell which parts of the Bible are from God (and therefore binding upon our hearts) and which parts aren't ..

Thanks!

--David

Hi.

Here are some concrete examples:

I consider parts of Hosea to be false. For instance, ch. 1. Therein, the text proclaims, in God's word, that the Northern Kingdom of Israel will not be destroyed completely by Assyria, instead, God will protect it and make it grow so that: "the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children of the living God." (Hosea 1:10) Then it also says that the Northern Kingdom of Israel will join with the Southern Kingdom of Judah, and together, they will serve one king: "The people of Judah and the people of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head; and they shall take possession of the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel."

I consider this to be false because none of this ever happened. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was wiped away. It became exactly opposite like the sand of the sea. It became exactly opposite that in the place that they were (the northern kingdom) that they were now known as his people (they ceased to exist there utterly!). And at no point ever did the Northern Kingdom join with the Southern Kingdom and both set up a single ruler for themselves (i.e., become a united monarchy again like in the days of David and Solomon). Not only did the north vanish, never to rise again, but no Judahite king ever took the throne of David after the return from exile. So by the rule established by the Law, this cannot be god's word.

I also consider the book of Revelation to be false (at least--the apocalypse proper - the letters are true). And this is why:

1. No one knows what it means or does not mean (if they're honest)

- Strike one: the Church and gospel exist to open our eyes, not make us blind to what it is and what it's saying

2. Every single age has believed what Revelation says to be speaking of them specifically—and been wrong—spawning a myriad end times cults in every generation

- Strike two: the truth cannot so completely lead the faithful into lies, deceit, and cult in every generation

3. It seems to be written in a code so that Christians being persecuted can be comforted and non-Christians who are persecuting them don't understand it

- Strike three: the gospel exists to bring understanding to the world, and Christians exist to testify to the world about it—even with their very lives – Paul and Christ and all those who came after them did these very things – that is the witness of the Church - therefore Revelation is taking a different “way” than the way of Christ and his church

- Strike four: only gnostic texts require secret knowledge to understand what they mean – the gospel is clear and plain - Revelation is not

In other words, I agree with Luther:
"I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."
--Martin Luther, Preface to Revelation, 1522

 

[St_Worm2]

I'll have to get back to you about Hosea, so let me start with your numbered items for now. You wrote:

I also consider the book of Revelation to be false (at least--the apocalypse proper - the letters are true). And this is why:

1. No one knows what it means or does not mean (if they're honest)

- Strike one: the Church and gospel exist to open our eyes, not make us blind to what it is and what it's saying

But can this not be said then of every utterance of prophesy? For instance, should you not say the same of Isaiah 7:14 then .. Who back then could have fully understood what "Behold, a virgin will be with child", meant? Answer: the couldn't and they didn't! Do you consider the future event foretold here to be "false" just because its full meaning wasn't understood until Christ was actually born of a virgin? That's what you seem to be saying about the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ. Revelation is obviously concerned with future events. You can't deem it "false" based upon the fact that we don't know the future in precise detail! But PTL we do know something about it as a result of being able to read Revelation .. You continue:

2. Every single age has believed what Revelation says to be speaking of them specifically—and been wrong—spawning a myriad end times cults in every generation

- Strike two: the truth cannot so completely lead the faithful into lies, deceit, and cult in every generation

People are led to believe all kinds of things, sadly, even Christians sometimes are. But just because a few Christians, and many, many more non-Christians, have tried to say they know in precise detail what everything in Revelation means, is also not a justifiable reason to rule it "false". You continue:

3. It seems to be written in a code so that Christians being persecuted can be comforted and non-Christians who are persecuting them don't understand it

- Strike three: the gospel exists to bring understanding to the world, and Christians exist to testify to the world about it—even with their very lives – Paul and Christ and all those who came after them did these very things – that is the witness of the Church - therefore Revelation is taking a different “way” than the way of Christ and his church

The church exists for many reasons and evangelizing is a big one. That however, "Christ and Him crucified", is far from the only reason the church, or Christians, exist! You continue:

- Strike four: only gnostic texts require secret knowledge to understand what they mean – the gospel is clear and plain - Revelation is not

But it will be (as I said above, it concerns the future). Do you deem every word of prophesy from Genesis 3 on as "false" based upon the fact that those who heard it at the time it was written did not completely understand it ..

Yours and His,
David

 

[childofdust]

But can this not be said then of every utterance of prophesy?

Not at all. The book of Revelation came AFTER Christ and his church was established, not before. Before Christ was revealed and his church established, there was great mystery about God's plans. But the coming of Christ and the establishment of his Church turns that situation on its head—now the Spirit leads us and guides us into all truth and the secrets of what would need to be made known are revealed. Christ opened the eyes of his people to see and understand all things. God's word is now a light on a hill burning bright for all to see. For Revelation to take that light and hide it in obscurity as if one were reading texts that came before Christ is exactly the problem.

Revelation is obviously concerned with future events. You can't deem it "false" based upon the fact that we don't know the future in precise detail!

I said that nowhere.

People are led to believe all kinds of things, sadly, even Christians sometimes are. But just because a few Christians, and many, many more non-Christians, have tried to say they know in precise detail what everything in Revelation means, is also not a justifiable reason to rule it "false".

Of course it isn't. It is justifiably false because of the VAST LEGIONS of people who have been led astray by it and who are CONTINUALLY led astra yby it in ways not seen from any other text of the New Testament period. No series of cults has ever sprang up, for instance, based on the epistle of James, or Luke, or Acts, or Galatians, or Hebrews. Etc. You know a tree by its fruit. Look at the fruit of Revelation. Its fruit is different than the fruit of other texts. The result of all who read it is either: 1. confusion or 2. error. And that is NOT the product of the Spirit of Truth.

The church exists for many reasons and evangelizing is a big one. That however, "Christ and Him crucified", is far from the only reason the church, or Christians, exist!

This is irrelevant to my problems with Revelation.

Do you deem every word of prophesy from Genesis 3 on as "false" based upon the fact that those who heard it at the time it was written did not completely understand it?

Of course not. That was never my argument anywhere.