Holy Bible vs Bible/ Word of God vs Scriptures

[Noose]

I think your argument is slightly flawed. Saved persons are holy and are called to be holy; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:15-17. Things can also be holy as well, consider the OT vessels, the ark &c.

I don't see referencing Scripture as being holy troublesome or incorrect, nor do I see referring to Scripture as the Word of God to be incorrect either as Paul did this himself; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Acts 17:1ff.

1 Thess 2:13 [FONT=&quot]And we also thank God continually[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot] because, when you received the word of God,[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot] which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.


[/FONT]Doesn't mean what you want it to mean, Paul wasn't talking about a bible.

Acts 17:1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,..

I think some versions would say Paul reasoned with them from the word of God but that the main point of discussion here.

Everything else that is labeled Holy was because of the presence of God.

 

[JohnRH]

I feel it's wrong to call a bible 'Holy bible' ...

Would you prefer "unholy bible"? Something's either holy or it's unholy.
A modern day wildlife sanctuary is a holy place for wildlife. (sanctified = holy = set apart). The wildlife in it are holy. Your dog, even on a leash, is unholy and may not enter. That's what the word means.
The unbelieving spouse/children in 1 Corinthians 7:14 are called "santified" and "holy" (same Greek root) and are made sanctified/holy by the presence of the believing spouse/parent; they're "set apart" unto the Christian environment & influence of the believer. (They'll still each have to have their own personal faith in Christ as their Savior in order to get set apart from eternity in hell, of course).

... because 'Holy' is God's attribute that a piece of book can't have.

But it's not His attribute exclusively. Saints (same Greek root as sanctified & holy) are holy. Things are holy.

Calling the bible Holy is like saying the bible is God.

Exodus 28:2 And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.
Is this like saying Aaron's garments are God?

Similarly, it is better to say scriptures than call the bible 'the word of God' because from the scripture, we get to learn that the word of God is God.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
You're equating Scriptures with the Bible, right? If scriptures are holy - and they are - then the Bible must be.

 

[James37]

This is about Christ, IMHO.

Based on Hebrews 4:2 I would say Hebrews 4:12 is referring to the written word, IMHO

 

[trofimus]

Based on Hebrews 4:2 I would say Hebrews 4:12 is referring to the written word, IMHO

"Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience. For (Because) the word of God is alive and active..."

So, should we make very effort because we have perfect Bibles or because Jesus Christ is alive and active?

The second makes more sense, IMHO. And, please, do not do any math on that verse

 

[Dino246]

Would you prefer "unholy bible"? Something's either holy or it's unholy.

Respectfully, the Bible speaks of "holy", "unholy", "clean" and "unclean". There are more than just two categories.

Otherwise, I agree... the Bible is "holy".

 

[Noose]

Would you prefer "unholy bible"? Something's either holy or it's unholy.
A modern day wildlife sanctuary is a holy place for wildlife. (sanctified = holy = set apart). The wildlife in it are holy. Your dog, even on a leash, is unholy and may not enter. That's what the word means.
The unbelieving spouse/children in 1 Corinthians 7:14 are called "santified" and "holy" (same Greek root) and are made sanctified/holy by the presence of the believing spouse/parent; they're "set apart" unto the Christian environment & influence of the believer. (They'll still each have to have their own personal faith in Christ as their Savior in order to get set apart from eternity in hell, of course).

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

I do believe the correct word as per the context should be acceptable or sanctified. Reason being, God can not have same attribute with a creature; for instance, in this case, the holiness that the scripture ascribes to the children is to mean that they are acceptable to God, but we can't take the same and ascribe to God- who can we say, God is acceptable to? Some translations have used acceptable. And in any case, the acceptability as used here only means legitimate in the eyes of God- no one goes to heaven just because they had a believing parent, okaaaaay?

But it's not His attribute exclusively. Saints (same Greek root as sanctified & holy) are holy. Things are holy.

Like i said, saints/believers have the presence of God in them- it is God in them that gives them the attribute or the right to be called holy.

Exodus 28:2 And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.
Is this like saying Aaron's garments are God?

That was a special garment that Aaron and other priest were to wear only when they were ministering in the presence of God at the Holy of holies and usually the correct words to use for items dedicated to worship is sacred; but i agree that this garment was called holy garment because it was to be worn only in the presence of God.
You can not compare it to the bible.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
You're equating Scriptures with the Bible, right? If scriptures are holy - and they are - then the Bible must be.

Otherwise translated as sacred, which i believe is the correct word because the scripture is an item dedicated for Lords work.

Don't just take the Hebrew root word and conclude that it must mean what it means in Hebrew like some translators have done. Context should give a word it's meaning as implied.
It all boils down to what you think is the meaning of Holy. I know it's not what the dictionary says- Holy almost the most fundamental definition of God that shows His purity and sovereignty that is not replicated in any other thing. There are so many spirits but there's one Holy spirit. You need to figure that out.

 

[Zmouth]

I feel it's wrong to call a bible 'Holy bible' because 'Holy' is God's attribute that a piece of book can't have. Calling the bible Holy is like saying the bible is God.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then if no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him then why is it written If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Similarly, it is better to say scriptures than call the bible 'the word of God' because from the scripture, we get to learn that the word of God is God.

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father who is the image of the invisible God and whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

The word of God is also living- the scriptures are not alive and they are certainly not God.

If you had known the word of God then you would have known the Spirit of truth as revealed in John 14:7, he that hateth me hateth my Father also, but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. As written in John 10:30, I and my Father are one.

Jesus also differentiates the two:

John 5:39 You pore over theScriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words thattestify about Me, 40yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.

37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: 1 Tim 6:16

What are your thoughts?

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

 

[James37]

"Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience. For (Because) the word of God is alive and active..."

So, should we make very effort because we have perfect Bibles or because Jesus Christ is alive and active?

The second makes more sense, IMHO. And, please, do not do any math on that verse

How about "Numbers?"

You think the context and subject of verse 12 was established in verse 11? The subject is given in the previous chapter in verse 7 followed by the example.

[FONT=&quot]"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice," (Hebrews 3:7)

Did Jesus speak to you in a vision or did you read or hear the written word of God preached?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (Hebrews 4:2)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Who is them and what word was preached? How does the author of Hebrews even know this apart from the written word?

[/FONT] "[FONT=&quot]For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works." (Hebrews 4:4)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Who is he and where is this "certain place?"

"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest." (Hebrews 4:50

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Where is "this place again?"

"[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Hebrews 4:11)

[/FONT]Their unbelief (Numbers 13) in what GOD HAD SAID TO THEM by Moses! The "word" in verse 2 is the same "word" in verse 11. How does the Book of Hebrews start?

"[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Hath [/FONT]in these last days spoken unto us by his Son[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif], whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Who is the "us" in Hebrews 1:2? Are we not included in this conversation?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the [/FONT]volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." (Hebrews 10:7)

God has provided us a book that we may know these things.






[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Noose]

How about "Numbers?"

You think the context and subject of verse 12 was established in verse 11? The subject is given in the previous chapter in verse 7 followed by the example.

"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice," (Hebrews 3:7)

Did Jesus speak to you in a vision or did you read or hear the written word of God preached?

"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (Hebrews 4:2)

Who is them and what word was preached? How does the author of Hebrews even know this apart from the written word?

"For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works." (Hebrews 4:4)

Who is he and where is this "certain place?"

"And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest." (Hebrews 4:50

Where is "this place again?"

"Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Hebrews 4:11)

Their unbelief (Numbers 13) in what GOD HAD SAID TO THEM by Moses! The "word" in verse 2 is the same "word" in verse 11. How does the Book of Hebrews start?

"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Who is the "us" in Hebrews 1:2? Are we not included in this conversation?

"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." (Hebrews 10:7)

God has provided us a book that we may know these things.

I'm not getting you but if in case you are insinuating that that the scriptures are the son of God (because in these last days God has spoken to us by His son), then i'll refer you to:

John 5:39 You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, 40yet you refuse to come to Me to have life.

It is the spirit in us that gives us the understanding when we read or listen and not everyone is given the spirit of truth. If the spirit was in the texts, then everyone who would read would understand the texts.

Luke 8:10He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,‘Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing,they may not understand.’

Luke 24:44Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.46And He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,..

It is actually God in us that gives us the understanding of the scriptures, not the other way round.

 

[James37]

I'm not getting you

That is apparent! The same "word" in Hebrews 4:2 is the same "word" in Hebrews 4:12. What is it that you do not get?

I insinuated nothing. If verse 12 referred to the "Word of God" it would have been capitalized. Everything in verse 12 concerning the "word of God" is true of the "Word of God" but the context is the "word preached" (verse 2) and verse 2 is referring to the children of Israel ("them") in the wilderness.

 

[James37]

Here is a question? Which translations capitalize "word" in Hebrews 4:12? Most translations capitalize "Word" in John 1:1 but not Hebrews 4:12? The reason is obvious based on the text.

 

[Nehemiah6]

What are your thoughts?

Why don't you acquire a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and check out every verse which has "holy" in it. Strong's will give you each and every verse. Then see how many times God applies that word to people and things other than Himself. So regardless of your "feelings" you must accept what the Holy Spirit has to say about this.

 

[KJV1611]

Why don't you acquire a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and check out every verse which has "holy" in it. Strong's will give you each and every verse. Then see how many times God applies that word to people and things other than Himself. So regardless of your "feelings" you must accept what the Holy Spirit has to say about this.

This is better than Strong's and it's free.

King James Pure Bible Search WebChannel Server

 

[Noose]

That is apparent! The same "word" in Hebrews 4:2 is the same "word" in Hebrews 4:12. What is it that you do not get?

I insinuated nothing. If verse 12 referred to the "Word of God" it would have been capitalized. Everything in verse 12 concerning the "word of God" is true of the "Word of God" but the context is the "word preached" (verse 2) and verse 2 is referring to the children of Israel ("them") in the wilderness.

And why did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees in John 5:39 for comparing scriptures (the word of God) to Himself (The WORD of God). I have capitalized so that we read from the same page.

 

[Noose]

Why don't you acquire a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and check out every verse which has "holy" in it. Strong's will give you each and every verse. Then see how many times God applies that word to people and things other than Himself. So regardless of your "feelings" you must accept what the Holy Spirit has to say about this.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is a man's work. Lean not in thy own understanding doesn't mean you must now lean on another man's understanding.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is a man's work. Lean not in thy own understanding doesn't mean you must now lean on another man's understanding.

This is ludicrous. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is a BIBLE TOOL to help you understand the Word of God. There are plenty of Bible tools which GOD HAS PROVIDED through diligent Christian men. Thank God for Strong's and use it, rather than make such disparaging comments.

 

[James37]

And why did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees in John 5:39 for comparing scriptures (the word of God) to Himself (The WORD of God). I have capitalized so that we read from the same page.

[FONT=&quot]"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39)

[/FONT]They were not equating Jesus with the scriptures. He was pointing out the fact that they did not believe the testimony of the scriptures concerning Him (Jesus that is). Jesus will later state this to his disciples in the last chapter of Luke's gospel.

“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” (Luke 24:44)

 

[MarcR]

Jesus is the Word of God; while at the same time He is indeed God. The Bible is the Word of God. The Bible is the visible representation of Jesus until His return. The Bible is indeed Holy. The authority of Scripture is God's authority. If you do not recognize that, you probably don't know Him. I will pray for your enlightenment!

 

[Dino246]

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is a man's work. Lean not in thy own understanding doesn't mean you must now lean on another man's understanding.

This is ludicrous. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is a BIBLE TOOL to help you understand the Word of God. There are plenty of Bible tools which GOD HAS PROVIDED through diligent Christian men. Thank God for Strong's and use it, rather than make such disparaging comments.

Why do you see Noose's comment as "disparaging"?

 

[KJV1611]

Jesus is the Word of God; while at the same time He is indeed God. The Bible is the Word of God. The Bible is the visible representation of Jesus until His return. The Bible is indeed Holy. The authority of Scripture is God's authority.

If I would have said that I would have be ridiculed to no end lol.