Tongue Speaker's Survey

[RickyZ]

If you are confused about their purpose, then of course you will be confused about when they cease.

 

[Enow]

If you are confused about their purpose, then of course you will be confused about when they cease.

Who are you talking to?

The purpose of tongues is for God to speak unto the people in their native tongue and when spoke in the assembly, it is to come with interpretation. Scripture supports that.

Turning it around and say it is a prayer language of the Holy Spirit to explain why no one understands it and why interpretation is not coming is not how you discern tongues when John 16:13 says in all BIBLES that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself and therefore cannot use God's gift of tongues to the people as a prayer language back to God.

 

[Enow]

The outpouring of Holy spirit occurred in the Temple, not the upper room.

And the holy Spirit was initially given to the twelve, not 120.

Scripture please.

I already have given you scripture to support my point of view. There is nothing about the temple nor only 12 being in that unsaid temple either.

 

[Enow]

Thanks added to Demi777, GOOWZ, CS1, & 88 for voting in the polls.

 

[Zi]

So you think the only time the Spirit speaks is thru tongues? And never to us as an individual?

Who are you talking to?

The purpose of tongues is for God to speak unto the people in their native tongue and when spoke in the assembly, it is to come with interpretation. Scripture supports that.

Turning it around and say it is a prayer language of the Holy Spirit to explain why no one understands it and why interpretation is not coming is not how you discern tongues when John 16:13 says in all BIBLES that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself and therefore cannot use God's gift of tongues to the people as a prayer language back to God.

 

[shrume]

The purpose of tongues is for God to speak unto the people in their native tongue

That is a direct contradiction of scripture.

1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

and when spoke in the assembly, it is to come with interpretation. Scripture supports that.

Yes, that much is true.

Your view even contradicts itself. On the one hand, you claim that "tongues is for God to speak unto the people in their native tongue". Then you claim that "it is to come with interpretation". If tongues is for God to speak to people in their native language, why does it need to be interpreted?

Turning it around and say it is a prayer language of the Holy Spirit to explain why no one understands it and why interpretation is not coming is not how you discern tongues when John 16:13 says in all BIBLES that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself and therefore cannot use God's gift of tongues to the people as a prayer language back to God.

One more time, John 16:13 has nothing at all to do with speaking in tongues.

 

[shrume]

Scripture please.

I already have given you scripture to support my point of view. There is nothing about the temple nor only 12 being in that unsaid temple either.

I (and Peacefulbeliever) have already given you scripture and reasons to support that it happened in the Temple.

Again, this is something on which we will not agree.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Here is a report found in a book documentating a Catholic nun possessed and speaking in tongues that did not come with interpretation. There are other reports that gives line of discernment that God's gift of tongues cannot be this kind of tongue.

[video=youtube;CBJyp7USS9g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJyp7USS9g[/video]

And here is a copy of my post from Benefits of Speaking, Praying and Singing in Tongues where you also posted this video:

Well, when God told him to get rid of the book - He should have gotten rid of the book period and not kept any part of it! He better be thanking God for his mercy . . . What happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they held back part of the money for the land they sold? (Acts 5) If you or anyone else for that matter choose to not believe in speaking in tongues - then leave the subject alone.

And why are you trying to find things that are against speaking in tongues when Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Christ - yet you want to attribute the act of speaking in tongues as an act of Satan? Wasn't Jesus accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons? . . . nothing new under the sun!

The devil moves against the things of God aggressively and relentlessly - you just keep helping him, Ok. I will keep speaking truth . . . 1 Cor. 12-14 are given to us so that we are not ignorant of spiritual matters. That we know how to operate with the power that God has given us through his gift of holy spirit. The power to stand against the methods of the adversary . . . the power to enable us to walk like Jesus did. The ability to exhort, edify, and encourage one another in the body of Christ. . . . Contend for the faith!!

 

[Enow]

So you think the only time the Spirit speaks is thru tongues? And never to us as an individual?

The Lord speaks to me all the time through the Holy Spirit within me without tongues and being understood in my thoughts as English, and even through the written word of scripture as kept in the KJV, tongues are not used for that purpose for self edification, especially when Paul admitted that they are unfruitful unless someone interpreted that tongue to him.

1 Corinthians 14:2 & 28 is being used out of context for what Paul was saying which is that tongues is not a stand alone gift for why believers that are zealous for spiritual gifts are to seek the gift of prophesy.

Matthew 6:[SUP]7[/SUP]But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.[SUP]8 [/SUP]Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Since the Father knows before we even ask Him in prayer, I fail to see the necessity of a secret communique between the Holy Spirit & God by route of a vain & profane babbling, and I would shun it when scripture identifies it with the devil's.

Isaiah 8:[SUP]19 [/SUP]And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

 

[Enow]

And here is a copy of my post from Benefits of Speaking, Praying and Singing in Tongues where you also posted this video:

Well, when God told him to get rid of the book - He should have gotten rid of the book period and not kept any part of it! He better be thanking God for his mercy . . . What happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they held back part of the money for the land they sold? (Acts 5) If you or anyone else for that matter choose to not believe in speaking in tongues - then leave the subject alone.

And why are you trying to find things that are against speaking in tongues when Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Christ - yet you want to attribute the act of speaking in tongues as an act of Satan? Wasn't Jesus accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons? . . . nothing new under the sun!

The devil moves against the things of God aggressively and relentlessly - you just keep helping him, Ok. I will keep speaking truth . . . 1 Cor. 12-14 are given to us so that we are not ignorant of spiritual matters. That we know how to operate with the power that God has given us through his gift of holy spirit. The power to stand against the methods of the adversary . . . the power to enable us to walk like Jesus did. The ability to exhort, edify, and encourage one another in the body of Christ. . . . Contend for the faith!!

It is inconsistent with the truth in scripture.

Matthew 6:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.[SUP]8 [/SUP]Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

The Father knows without the Holy Spirit giving that knowledge by route of tongues as some are claiming as to what is happening when tongues does not come with interpretation.

Then you have the command to abstain from all appearances of evil....

1 Thessalonians 5:[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.[SUP]22 [/SUP]Abstain from all appearance of evil.

The Bible proves the existence of the devil's supernatural tongue as vain & profane babbling before God's gift of tongues of other men's lips to speak unto the people that came at Penetcost.

Isaiah 8:[SUP]19 [/SUP]And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Now how can any tongue speaker defend their tongue without interpretation by saying "... oh.. well Satan mimics God's tongues" when Isaiah 8:19 would make God mimicking the devil's tongue... and that cannot be.

The only choice left in drawing the line for truth is that God's gift of tongues is ONLY for speaking unto the people as it will be understood by a foreigner or it will come with interpretation in the assembly for that tongue to be God's gift of tongues.

 

[shrume]

It is inconsistent with the truth in scripture.

The things you are proposing are, yes.

Matthew 6:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.[SUP]8 [/SUP]Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Tongues is not "vain repetitions". It is not "as the heathen do".

The Father knows without the Holy Spirit giving that knowledge by route of tongues as some are claiming as to what is happening when tongues does not come with interpretation.

You are letting your fear of something you do not understand keep you from coming to an understanding of it.

Then you have the command to abstain from all appearances of evil....

1 Thessalonians 5:[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.[SUP]22 [/SUP]Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Speaking in tongues is not evil, and does not appear evil. Speaking against it, as you do, is evil, or at the very least ignorant.

The Bible proves the existence of the devil's supernatural tongue as vain & profane babbling before God's gift of tongues of other men's lips to speak unto the people that came at Penetcost.

Speaking in tongues has nothing to do with anything the devil might come up with. And your understanding of what tongues is for remains incorrect.

Isaiah 8:[SUP]19 [/SUP]And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Now how can any tongue speaker defend their tongue without interpretation by saying "... oh.. well Satan mimics God's tongues" when Isaiah 8:19 would make God mimicking the devil's tongue... and that cannot be.

Your entire argument is basically a strawman. The existence of Isa 8:19 in no way means tongues without interpretation is mimicking the devil.

The only choice left in drawing the line for truth is that God's gift of tongues is ONLY for speaking unto the people as it will be understood by a foreigner

PLEASE read 1 Cor 14:2 and look at the words that say "speaketh NOT unto men".

or it will come with interpretation in the assembly for that tongue to be God's gift of tongues.

In public, the manifestation of tongues should always be interpreted. Not so in private, to yourself.

Enow, your understanding of tongues remains faulty.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

It is inconsistent with the truth in scripture.

Matthew 6:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.[SUP]8 [/SUP]Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Matthew 6:1 Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. . . And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen of others. And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words -

And yes the Father knows what things we have need of before we even ask him but apparently HE. WANTS. US. TO. ASK. HIM. . . . And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.Matt. 21:22
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. John 16:24
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:Matt. 7:7
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Luke 11:9,10 . . . And we know that he wants us to pray without ceasing . . . 1 Thess. 5:17
So exactly what Matt. 6:7 has to do with speaking in tongues? NOTHING!

The Father knows without the Holy Spirit giving that knowledge by route of tongues as some are claiming as to what is happening when tongues does not come with interpretation.

Here is what God says about tongues without interpretation; not you or your video: v2) For the one who speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men but to God; for no one understands him, but he (the one speaking) utters mysteries (secrets) in the spirit . . . v4a) The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself . . . that is tongues without interpretation.

Then you have the command to abstain from all appearances of evil....

1 Thessalonians 5:

[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.[SUP]22 [/SUP]Abstain from all appearance of evil.

The Bible proves the existence of the devil's supernatural tongue as vain & profane babbling before God's gift of tongues of other men's lips to speak unto the people that came at Penetcost.

Isaiah 8:[SUP]19 [/SUP]And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

Now how can any tongue speaker defend their tongue without interpretation by saying "... oh.. well Satan mimics God's tongues" when Isaiah 8:19 would make God mimicking the devil's tongue... and that cannot be.

The manifestation of the Spirit, i.e. speaking in tongues is not evil. Why would God tell us to do something that is evil?

You are attributing the work of God to Satan, just as the people attributed the works that Jesus did to Beelzebub . . . But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils,. . That is how far off base you are . . . You need to really stop and think about what you are saying.

The only choice left in drawing the line for truth is that God's gift of tongues is ONLY for speaking unto the people as it will be understood by a foreigner or it will come with interpretation in the assembly for that tongue to be God's gift of tongues.

No, it is speaking secrets to God (1 Cor. 14:2); it is for the edification of the one speaking when without interpretation (1 Co. 14:4a) . . . That is what God says the manifestation of speaking in tongues without interpretation is for . . . Paul goes so far as to make this a command speaking by revelation from God: Now I want you all to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:5) . . . Paul prayed in the Spirit and prayed with his understanding also (1 Cor. 14:15) . . . In 14:37 Paul clearly states that the things he is writing are a command of the Lord . . . If any man be ignorant, Let him be ignorant.

 

[WingsOfFidelity]

If you are confused about their purpose, then of course you will be confused about when they cease.

If you are referring to me, I am not confused about the purpose of tongues, nor on when they ceased. When they were in use the written Word, the Bible, was not yet finished. Now that we have the perfect Word they are no longer needed.

 

[Zi]

Unfortunate that you believe this

If you are referring to me, I am not confused about the purpose of tongues, nor on when they ceased. When they were in use the written Word, the Bible, was not yet finished. Now that we have the perfect Word they are no longer needed.

 

[presidente]

That's quite a feat to get 120 people in one of these....

I got a joke from you that I heard but will modify a bit to go with the 'one accord' theme. This is fiction, btw.

Jennifer Lopez was walking on the streets of LA, and she came across 20 people trying to squeeze into an Accord. They just couldn't get the 20th person in there. She told them she had always wanted to try something like that. So one of them volunteered to let her take her place. Using her star dance moves, she was able to squeeze into the car as the 20th person.

The moral of the story is: There's always room for J-Lo.

 

[presidente]

WingsOfFidelity quoted John MacArthur,

Tongues "Will Cease"The gift of tongues was a divinely bestowed supernatural ability to speak in a human language that had not been learned by the one speaking. According to the Apostle Paul, when believers exercised the gift of tongues in church, they were to speak one at a time, and only two or three were to speak in a given service (1 Cor. 14:27). Furthermore, when tongues were spoken in the church, they were to be interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation so that the others might be edified by the God-given message (1 Cor. 14:5, 13, 27). In this way, tongues did not serve as a private prayer language, but rather—like all spiritual gifts—as a means by which one might serve and edify the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7; 1 Pet. 4:10).

This is a much more coherent and respectful-of-scripture interpretation than one of the sermons still on his site, attributed to him, in which he considers the tongues of the Corinthians to be pagan tongues in I Corinthians 14, and to be related to the speech of the oracle of Delphi. That interpretation was actually along the lines of an old 19th century liberal interpretation, if not downright blasphemous. It was still on his site the last I checked. He is not someone to go to for exegesis on spiritual gifts passages.

I Corinthians says whether there be tongues, they will cease. It doesn't say 'the gift of tongues' will cease. That is JM's interpertation.

Historically, there are references to various spiritual gifts mentioned in I Corinthians. Irenenaeus mentions them around 200 AD, including speaking in tongues. He thought it was important that a church be able to raise the dead, something he had experienced. This is one of the historical champions of orthodoxy. Historically, the early church was not cessationist. This is post-Reformation doctrine, not a doctrine found in scripture or in early church writings.

Evidence from Scripture

What biblical or theological evidence is there that tongues have ceased? First, the gift of tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and the age of miracles and revelation ended with the apostles. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58, with the healings on the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10). From A.D. 58 to 96, when John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded. .

That's a lame argument. John predicts future miracles, the two witnesses would prophesy and shut up the heavens. There has to be a last miracle mentioned in the Bible.

I Corinthians 12 says the Spirit gifts members of the body of Christ with spiritual gifts. The Bible never cancels that teaching. The Bible commands, 'earnestly desire spiritual gifts,' 'covet to prophesy', and 'despise not prophesyings.' The church should obey these commands.

Miracle gifts like tongues and healing are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, an early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss gifts of the Spirit at length—but no mention is made of the miraculous gifts. By that time miracles were already looked on as something in the past (Heb. 2:3-4)..

John 3:16 is not quoted in the book of Revelation. Does that mean it is no longer true? How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it?

Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. .

Man-made doctrine. Where does the Bible say that miracles were about confirming apostolic authority? Non-apostles did miracles, too. Philip, Stephen. I Corinthians 12 lists 'apostles' and 'miracles' as different ministries, so there were some non-apostle miracle workers.

Before the first century ended, the entire New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches..

Yet second century writings refer to the gift of prophecy being active in the church, and there are references to miracles throughout history.

The revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose. And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot

Man-made doctrine, and not part of the 'faith once delivered to the saints' that we are taught to contend for.

Second, tongues were intended as a sign to unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:21-22; cf. Is. 28:11-12). They signified that God had begun a new work that encompassed the Gentiles. The Lord would now speak to all nations in all languages. The barriers were down. And so the gift of languages symbolized not only the curse of God on a disobedient nation, but also the blessing of God on the whole world.

Is this replacement theology from a dispensationalist? He has a hodge-podge theology when it comes to spiritual gifts, drawing from liberals and replacement theolgians. It's like anything to argue against spiritual gifts.

Paul quotes the verse and applies it to the unbeliever who comes into church. He doesn't specify
the man has to be a Jew.

Third, the gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Cor. 14:22) and was also easily misused to edify self (1 Cor. 14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift.

.
Faulty reasoning. None of these arguments back up his conclusion that tongues wasn't supposed to be a permanent gift. Paul doesn't say it was given 'primarily' as a sign either. Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. To them that believe, it is one of the gifts that edify. It edifies the church if interpreted.

The Evidence from History

The evidence of history also indicates that tongues have ceased. It is significant that tongues are mentioned only in the earliest books of the New Testament. Paul wrote at least twelve epistles after 1 Corinthians and never mentioned tongues again. Peter never mentioned tongues; James never mentioned tongues; John never mentioned tongues; neither did Jude.

Peter, James, and Jude never quoted John 3:16. Does that mean it isn't true. How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it? Two books mention speaking in tongues clearly. Why do all the other books have to mention it for it to be true? Certain books do not mention elders, church discipline, or marriage. Does that mean we reject what the Bible does teach on the subjects?

 

[RickyZ]

Who are you talking to?

The purpose of tongues is for God to speak unto the people in their native tongue and when spoke in the assembly, it is to come with interpretation. Scripture supports that.

Turning it around and say it is a prayer language of the Holy Spirit to explain why no one understands it and why interpretation is not coming is not how you discern tongues when John 16:13 says in all BIBLES that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself and therefore cannot use God's gift of tongues to the people as a prayer language back to God.

Well, I was going to answer you, but I thinks everyone else already said pretty much everything I would say.

 

[RickyZ]

If you are referring to me, I am not confused about the purpose of tongues, nor on when they ceased. When they were in use the written Word, the Bible, was not yet finished. Now that we have the perfect Word they are no longer needed.

I was referring to several people actually.

And I'm glad that your perfect, the Bible, is with you here and now.

My perfect, Jesus, is not. And until He is, I - we - need every gift He can give us until then.

That's what I meant about being confused on their purpose. If you think the purpose of the gifts were to lend credence to a book, you're confused.

If you think the purpose of the gifts is to allow us a means to 'import' Christ's redemption into this yet to be redeemed world, then you're not.

Who do you worship, what is your be-all end-all : the Book or the Redeemer?

 

[WingsOfFidelity]

WingsOfFidelity quoted John MacArthur,


This is a much more coherent and respectful-of-scripture interpretation than one of the sermons still on his site, attributed to him, in which he considers the tongues of the Corinthians to be pagan tongues in I Corinthians 14, and to be related to the speech of the oracle of Delphi. That interpretation was actually along the lines of an old 19th century liberal interpretation, if not downright blasphemous. It was still on his site the last I checked. He is not someone to go to for exegesis on spiritual gifts passages.

I Corinthians says whether there be tongues, they will cease. It doesn't say 'the gift of tongues' will cease. That is JM's interpertation.

Historically, there are references to various spiritual gifts mentioned in I Corinthians. Irenenaeus mentions them around 200 AD, including speaking in tongues. He thought it was important that a church be able to raise the dead, something he had experienced. This is one of the historical champions of orthodoxy. Historically, the early church was not cessationist. This is post-Reformation doctrine, not a doctrine found in scripture or in early church writings.


That's a lame argument. John predicts future miracles, the two witnesses would prophesy and shut up the heavens. There has to be a last miracle mentioned in the Bible.

I Corinthians 12 says the Spirit gifts members of the body of Christ with spiritual gifts. The Bible never cancels that teaching. The Bible commands, 'earnestly desire spiritual gifts,' 'covet to prophesy', and 'despise not prophesyings.' The church should obey these commands.



John 3:16 is not quoted in the book of Revelation. Does that mean it is no longer true? How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it?



Man-made doctrine. Where does the Bible say that miracles were about confirming apostolic authority? Non-apostles did miracles, too. Philip, Stephen. I Corinthians 12 lists 'apostles' and 'miracles' as different ministries, so there were some non-apostle miracle workers.



Yet second century writings refer to the gift of prophecy being active in the church, and there are references to miracles throughout history.


Man-made doctrine, and not part of the 'faith once delivered to the saints' that we are taught to contend for.



Is this replacement theology from a dispensationalist? He has a hodge-podge theology when it comes to spiritual gifts, drawing from liberals and replacement theolgians. It's like anything to argue against spiritual gifts.

Paul quotes the verse and applies it to the unbeliever who comes into church. He doesn't specify
the man has to be a Jew.
.
Faulty reasoning. None of these arguments back up his conclusion that tongues wasn't supposed to be a permanent gift. Paul doesn't say it was given 'primarily' as a sign either. Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. To them that believe, it is one of the gifts that edify. It edifies the church if interpreted.


Peter, James, and Jude never quoted John 3:16. Does that mean it isn't true. How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it? Two books mention speaking in tongues clearly. Why do all the other books have to mention it for it to be true? Certain books do not mention elders, church discipline, or marriage. Does that mean we reject what the Bible does teach on the subjects?

I didn't say I agreed to ALL of what I quoted. It was to provoke thought.

 

[WingsOfFidelity]

I was referring to several people actually.

And I'm glad that your perfect, the Bible, is with you here and now.

My perfect, Jesus, is not. And until He is, I - we - need every gift He can give us until then.

That's what I meant about being confused on their purpose. If you think the purpose of the gifts were to lend credence to a book, you're confused.

If you think the purpose of the gifts is to allow us a means to 'import' Christ's redemption into this yet to be redeemed world, then you're not.

Who do you worship, what is your be-all end-all : the Book or the Redeemer?

What? I thought everyone was saying they spoke in tongues for their own edification, not for 'the world'. That it was their own personal 'prayer language'. And to that I say, how does it help the person if that person can not understand what 'the spirit' is saying?

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

And I never said I worshiped the 'book'.

Do you believe the Bible is the Lord's complete Word? Do you believe the Lord's Word is perfect? Do you believe that there should be no adding or taking away from His Word?