The Word of God?

[csuguy]

Exodus 15:3. “The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name.”

This is a song that the Israelite's sang right after being saved from Egypt. Of course God does not shrink away from battle and war - but the fact that he engages in it does not mean that he is a God of War.

You can't cherry pick such a verse and use it to ignore the fact the God, in the OT, did not wish to be represented or understood as a God of War. He wanted his temple built by a peaceful ruler. Even though David was a man after God's own heart, he forbid him from building the temple on account of him being a warrior King with lots of blood on his hands.

Also, you picked an odd translation. "Warrior" is more appropriate (God is not a man).

 

[chair]

glory, you simply are being obtuse. As usual you pretzel things to deny truth.

Please point out to me where the book we call the Bible is mentioned in that Psalm.

 

[MennoSota]

Please point out to me where the book we call the Bible is mentioned in that Psalm.

Please stop being a fool and just read the Bible. Your requirement shows your ignorance.

 

[chair]

Please stop being a fool and just read the Bible. Your requirement shows your ignorance.

Pay attention: I am not speaking out of ignorance. I am pointing out a common mistake. Let's take a careful look at those verses:
#9 refers to God's word
#10 refers to God's commandments
#11 to God's sayings
#12 to Gods rules
and so on
(I have used my own translation, but your's will work just as well)

I don't know which of these you think refers to the Bible.

Let's take the first, God's word. Does that mean a book? Well, the same term is used in the beginning of the Book of Jonah:

The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”​

Does that mean a Bible came to Jonah? I think not. This is why I said that you assumed that 'word' means 'bible'. It is a common assumption, but an error.

Please think about it, and try not to defend your ideas by calling me a fool or whatever. Think about it.

 

[Guyver]

This is a song that the Israelite's sang right after being saved from Egypt. Of course God does not shrink away from battle and war - but the fact that he engages in it does not mean that he is a God of War.

You can't cherry pick such a verse and use it to ignore the fact the God, in the OT, did not wish to be represented or understood as a God of War. He wanted his temple built by a peaceful ruler. Even though David was a man after God's own heart, he forbid him from building the temple on account of him being a warrior King with lots of blood on his hands.

Also, you picked an odd translation. "Warrior" is more appropriate (God is not a man).

The verse I posted was from NKJV, which is the translation I have been using since 1982.

If the Bible is Gods word, there’s no such thing as cherry picking because it’s all cherries, unless of course - it isn’t.

Jesus said love your enemies, YWHW said kill them. These two things are so completely opposite as to be contradictory.

 

[Idolater]

As Jesus told the Pharisees, Matthew 15:6 "...You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."

Yes, traditions that authentically contradict the Scripture do nullify the Word of God, no argument.

Catholicism may say that nothing exceeds the scripture in authority (though, honestly never heard a Catholic assert it in those words), but in practice scripture takes a back seat to the councils, Church Fathers, and overall tradition. This is because, in Catholicism these things are viewed as holding the correct interpretation of scripture. So, even if the teaching in fact isn't found in scripture or even contradicts scripture - it doesn't matter to the Catholic.

Whether an authentic Catholic teaching ever contradicts Scripture is an open question; it hasn't been proven.

In fact, for the longest time the Catholic laity weren't taught to read the scriptures period - and were even punished for making it accessible to others in the common tongue.

Vs. the Scripture is read at every Mass.

The papacy and the idea of infallibility are one such invention. In fact, the formal definition of Papal Infallibility didn't come around until the later half of the 19th century in the First Vatican Council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council), and even in Catholicism there were those who opposed the idea.

Who are the people "in Catholicism" who opposed it?

Let me set out for you Catholicism's own take on this matter, it's quite simple.
A. God the Father said to listen to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
B. The Lord Jesus authenticated the Old Testament as the Word of God, and He said to listen to His Apostles.
C. The Apostles said to listen to the bishops.
D. The bishops today say what's in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.'

The words of the Apostles after Pentecost are the Word of God (1Th2:13KJV). The Apostles taught by written word (all extant Apostolic writings are already in the New Testament), and by spoken word. The Apostles especially instructed the bishops, and the bishops were tasked with both teaching the Word of God, and with preserving the Word of God in perpetuity /until Kingdom Come.

Whenever Church councils concluded, the bishops' witness of the Word of God emerged from them more uniform than when they went into them. Their witness was more pure after the council than before the council. This is true for every Church council, including the first one, recorded in Acts chapter 15. During councils, all the bishops 'compared notes' and decisions were authoritatively made about what was the one Apostolic witness on the matter(s) in question during each council.

 

[csuguy]

The verse I posted was from NKJV, which is the translation I have been using since 1982.

If the Bible is Gods word, there’s no such thing as cherry picking because it’s all cherries, unless of course - it isn’t.

Jesus said love your enemies, YWHW said kill them. These two things are so completely opposite as to be contradictory.

No - you are very much cherry picking, aka electing to only look at verses which are favorable to your outlook. A proper exegesis of the texts requires studying all relevant passages and developing an objective understanding of the text. You are blatantly ignoring scripture in both the OT and NT to maintain your false division between how God is presented therein. It's simple intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Idolater]

Thank you. I’m not interseted in understanding Christianity as religion has no appeal to me. I am very interested in God however, and He does mean something to me. I am interested in why Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God and what that actually means.

So far, they have not been able to assist me much. From what I gather, Christians believe the Bible is God speaking because they do (ie. that is their religion) or because the Bible itself claims that is. I don’t find these two reasons compelling in the least, but obviously, some people do.

If you don't believe in Christ's Resurrection, then I can't help you much. But if you do believe in the Resurrection, that that confirms every other thing, and as I set out for Csuguy, the Word of God is very clear according to the historical Christian account:

God the Father told us to listen to His Son.
His Son told us to listen to His Apostles.
His Apostles told us to listen to the bishops.
And the bishops tell us what's in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.'

 

[Idolater]

... the Words of God himself should be intuitively obvious to any intelligent casual observer as they would be so special as to be self-apparent.

I suggest that this position is reasonable, and I would point to the Lord Jesus's parables as meeting this reasonable expectation. Even knowing nothing else, His parables are to me self-apparently the words of God Himself.

 

[Hawkins]

The concept of Logos is not something new. It's used interchangeably with the word dāvār by famous Greek philosophers such as Plato. dāvār was used in translating the Jewish concept "Word of God" into Septuagint while Logos became the more solid and formal word in NT.

NT are mostly delivered from the Jews, with their continuous concepts about what is said. If a new concept suddenly pops up, all the Jews will notice. Most of the NT terms with their corresponding concepts can be traced back, they don't just pop up from no where. However some areas may be blurred due to NT was written in a transition from Hebrew to Greek. The continuity of the concepts remains but what Greek words used maybe in variety. Plus that today's Greek usage may also have a difference from that 2000 years ago.

That is to say, even under the circumstance that the root of some Greek words cannot be concretely tracked back from today's POV but for their usage 2000 years ago, it by no means says that the Jewish concepts themselves were not solid back then. To put it another way, the Jewish concepts may be solid, it's the terms used appear to be unclear due to a Hebrew to Greek transition, plus a usage difference between today's Greek and back then.

 

[Guyver]

No - you are very much cherry picking, aka electing to only look at verses which are favorable to your outlook. A proper exegesis of the texts requires studying all relevant passages and developing an objective understanding of the text. You are blatantly ignoring scripture in both the OT and NT to maintain your false division between how God is presented therein. It's simple intellectual dishonesty.

Why wouldn't you just admit that you were wrong and stand corrected CSUguy? When I said God is called a man of war in the OT, you said incorrect. I posted the scripture itself right in front of you and it's like you've been trying to argue with me ever since. Help me understand why you seem unable to stand corrected.

 

[Guyver]

I suggest that this position is reasonable, and I would point to the Lord Jesus's parables as meeting this reasonable expectation. Even knowing nothing else, His parables are to me self-apparently the words of God Himself.

Thank you. I would like to ask you something, if you don't mind. Have you ever read Shakespeare or Plato?

 

[oatmeal]

Greetings. I have recently returned to this site after a long time. As I have been reading your posts, I hear people often referring to the Bible as the Word of God. I’d like to ask you to help me understand what you mean by that.

Does that mean you believe God wrote the Bible? If I read the Bible, am I reading the words that God himself has spoken?

Or is it just a religious platitude that people use because they some satisfaction in believing it or discussing it with other religious people?

I should say that I am very interested in hearing the words of God. I want to know what God says, because that will allow me to understand what God thinks. Will you please post some words of God that I can read so that I can know what God has said? Thank you in advance.

God is the sole author of His Word and every word in His word.

God have various holy men of God write it down so we could know God's will.

II Peter 1:21, I Timothy 2:4

The original manuscripts that God had these men write down were perfect but as time went on and copies of copies were made some error crept into the manuscripts, God is not responsible for man's errors

God is perfect, therefore every word of His word is perfect in every way

Scripture does not contain God's word, it is God's word.

Every word, every passage, every bit of information in it has a Godly purpose

To know God's word, his logos in writing is to come face to face with the Creator.

Jesus Christ is known as the Word of God as well, because Jesus Christ perfectly lived what God had written in His written word

Thus to know Jesus Christ is to know God's written word and to know God's written word and to know Jesus Christ the living word, the word in the flesh is to know God as much as God had thus far revealed himself to mankind

 

[Guyver]

No - you are very much cherry picking, aka electing to only look at verses which are favorable to your outlook. A proper exegesis of the texts requires studying all relevant passages and developing an objective understanding of the text. You are blatantly ignoring scripture in both the OT and NT to maintain your false division between how God is presented therein. It's simple intellectual dishonesty.

It is really poor form to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, IMHO. I ignore nothing. The bottom line is that just about any topic in the bible is presented by opposites. Meaning....when you find a verse that makes a statement a person like you could build a doctrine on, then the exact opposite can be found in another scripture somewhere else. If you think I'm being dishonest.....feel free to try it. Test it out and see whether it be so. I've already provided some in this very thread. I wonder if you have the eyes to see it?

 

[Guyver]

God is the sole author of His Word and every word in His word.

God have various holy men of God write it down so we could know God's will.

II Peter 1:21, I Timothy 2:4

The original manuscripts that God had these men write down were perfect but as time went on and copies of copies were made some error crept into the manuscripts, God is not responsible for man's errors

God is perfect, therefore every word of His word is perfect in every way

Scripture does not contain God's word, it is God's word.

Every word, every passage, every bit of information in it has a Godly purpose

Do you think God is pleased by the slaughter of innocent children and animals?

 

[Idolater]

Thank you. I would like to ask you something, if you don't mind. Have you ever read Shakespeare or Plato?

Yes. I have never read anything like Christ's parables. They are such that, even if one were to doubt the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, one would still need to then explain who developed all the parables. They stand out as unique among all the words ever spoken or penned, in all the world, throughout all of history.

 

[glorydaz]

Why wouldn't you just admit that you were wrong and stand corrected CSUguy? When I said God is called a man of war in the OT, you said incorrect. I posted the scripture itself right in front of you and it's like you've been trying to argue with me ever since. Help me understand why you seem unable to stand corrected.

Context is everything. The people who were delivered from slavery were saying that of God. If you were delivered from Egypt, you would be praising Him for how He defeated the Egyptian Army who came after them.

This is not difficult to understand. You just have to put on your thinking cap and read the verse as it is written....as a thankful prayer to the Mighty God who delivered them. Don't read things into Scripture that aren't there.

 

[Guyver]

Yes. I have never read anything like Christ's parables. They are such that, even if one were to doubt the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, one would still need to then explain who developed all the parables. They stand out as unique among all the words ever spoken or penned, in all the world, throughout all of history.

I agree that some of Christ’s parables are actually very good. On the question of who wrote them? Well that’s a whole other discussion. As far as we know, there are no written words of Jesus. The only thing we know of Jesus is to be found in the New Testament. There are other early Christian writings that mention Jesus and record things he said or did, but these works didn’t make it into the Bible.

One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is found in the passage of the Woman Taken in Adultery. He said, “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” But that story was not actually found in the earliest manuscripts of the Bible (according to professional expert theologians) and so, it seems they were added by brilliant Catholic Scholars at a much later time.

So, one possible answer is that some of the parables may have been written by brilliant Catholics. But, let’s just say they were not. I would be happy to consider the best of Jesus’ parables with you, and see if they could have been written by men, or if in fact, they contain evidence of divine authorship. It would be my pleasure. Where should we begin?

 

[Idolater]

I agree that some of Christ’s parables are actually very good. On the question of who wrote them? Well that’s a whole other discussion. As far as we know, there are no written words of Jesus. The only thing we know of Jesus is to be found in the New Testament. There are other early Christian writings that mention Jesus and record things he said or did, but these works didn’t make it into the Bible.

One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is found in the passage of the Woman Taken in Adultery. He said, “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” But that story was not actually found in the earliest manuscripts of the Bible (according to professional expert theologians) and so, it seems they were added by brilliant Catholic Scholars at a much later time.

So, one possible answer is that some of the parables may have been written by brilliant Catholics. But, let’s just say they were not. I would be happy to consider the best of Jesus’ parables with you, and see if they could have been written by men, or if in fact, they contain evidence of divine authorship. It would be my pleasure. Where should we begin?

First, do you believe that Christ is risen, as reported in the Scripture, and as taught by the bishops of the Church?

And second, it turns out that Wikipedia has not only an entry for the parables of Christ, but also each parable appears to have its own entry.

Perhaps we can start with what the world at large thinks about the parables?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus

Does this help guide us in deciding which of His parables are His "best" (your word)?

 

[Guyver]

First, do you believe that Christ is risen, as reported in the Scripture, and as taught by the bishops of the Church?

And second, it turns out that Wikipedia has not only an entry for the parables of Christ, but also each parable appears to have its own entry.

Perhaps we can start with what the world at large thinks about the parables?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus

Does this help guide us in deciding which of His parables are His "best" (your word)?

First, thanks for replying. Second, why are you asking me if I believe that Christ is risen? How could my beliefs one way or the other impact what we are discussing? We are discussing whether or not the Bible is the word of God as people claim. Christ may be born of a woman, crucified, and resurrected after three days in the grave, after having descended into hell with the keys of the kingdom in hand, leading captivity captive, or he was not. It’s definitely a fact one way or the other, but my beliefs about it don’t change the reality of it.

You said that the parables of Jesus represent the word of the divine because they are unique and could not have been written by men. That’s the exact question I asked in the OP of this thread. If it can be shown that the Bible is a divine work, then it stands to reason that God could have been the one who wrote it - indirectly of course. I mean, it would be pure foolishness to believe that God himself actually wrote the Bible right? I mean the Bible itself tells us that it was men who wrote the Bible and not God himself. The only two times in the Bible that actually claim God wrote something were once on stone tablets, and once on the wall of a pagan Emperor. Unless, you believe that Jesus is God himself, and Jesus supposedly wrote some words in the sand once. Unfortunately, those words have not been preserved.

So yes, your wiki link is fine, but I think it best to discuss the top words of Jesus that represent God speaking, based on YOUR opinion of the best one. I could tell you which of Jesus parables I think best, and it is the parable of the Good Samaritan.