What is "God's Word?"

[GWH]

I will agree that agreement implies at least a degree of unity or oneness, but also would you choose to express them with a phrase that is used to imply "thing" rather than one that directly implies "agreement"? The explanations that appear in commentaries that this is based on an Aramaic phrase are not supported by any Aramaic scholars that I am aware of, but I am aware of Greek scholars who accept the implication of "thing/object" over "agreement".

I am glad we agree. Could you make your question multiple choice?

 

[Gideon300]

Gideon300
Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament? Even Luter kept the Apocrypha in his bible. It was in every Protestant Bible -if there is such a thing. The British and Foreign Bible Society dropped the Apocrypha from their English Bibles in 1804 and formalized this decision in 1827 to reduce printing costs. The Revised Version (RV), the 1885 revision of the King James Bible, formally removed the Apocrypha, sealing its omission from most subsequent Protestant editions. Which publisher made that decision? Today, 1.6 billion Christians still have the Apocrypha in their bibles.
Whose canon? Who determined the canon of which you speak? When did this happen? The word canon implies a unified set of limited writings. Was it always the same?

I thought you were a Bible student. You should know when the canon of scripture was settled. I don't care who has the apocrypha. And I don't accept Catholicism as Christian.

The apocrypha is not scripture because it fails the test. Those books may have some help to understand some history, such as is found in Maccabees. I've managed to survive as a believer with the Protestant Bible as it stands now. If people want the apocrypha for whatever reason, it's available still. It is not scripture.​

 

[rewriter]

I am glad we agree. Could you make your question multiple choice?

Well, the question would be, what single object could fit the description of blood, water and spirit and how could such an object connect to the resurrection.

 

[rewriter]

I thought you were a Bible student. You should know when the canon of scripture was settled. I don't care who has the apocrypha. And I don't accept Catholicism as Christian.

The apocrypha is not scripture because it fails the test. Those books may have some help to understand some history, such as is found in Maccabees. I've managed to survive as a believer with the Protestant Bible as it stands now. If people want the apocrypha for whatever reason, it's available still. It is not scripture.​

Well, I have studied a bit on such subjects, and the OT canon was established by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia, in the late 1st century, it was later accepted as Christian scripture by the Catholic church, with the Apocrypha in an undetermined status. Our NT canon was accepted later by the Catholic church, so the Catholic church did the basic work to establish the Protestant canon of scripture. Then when Martin Luther set to work to translate the scriptures into German for the emerging Protestant movement, he was originally planning to include the Apocrypha as the Catholic church did not accept it but it was included in the Septuagint, the version of the OT that was heavily used in the early church. Then while translating the Apocrypha, he found a single verse that seemed to support the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, so Luther decided to reject the Apocrypha. When Luther rejected the Apocrypha, the Catholic church decided it must belong and so added it to the canon of the OT and then closed the canon, something the Protestants have not done.

However, if one does look closely at how the canon of the NT was established, it looks a lot like political motivations behind much of it. Hebrews was allocated Pauline authorship, even though its authorship was questioned. Revelation was pushed by the western church while the Shepherd of Hermas was preferred by the eastern church. The western church used the influence of the emperor to make certain that Revelation was included, despite questions about who was the John that wrote it as it clearly was a different John than the rest of the Johannine literature, and the Shepherd was excluded. And there are several other works that were considered for inclusion, often with good support, but were ultimately rejected. But it was also acknowledged by the early church that both John and Mark had been tampered with, but the tampered versions were accepted.

The history of establishing the canon of scripture is anything but pretty, in fact it looks a lot like human-based political decisions.

 

[ResidentAlien]

God's word is the Bible; at least it is for me. It hasn't let me down.

 

[Suze]

I would like to explore your definition of "God's Word."

As a practical matter each denomination constrain their seminarians to the limits of their established "statement of faith" Thus, by contract they can never say anything not approved by a brittle theology dating to the 16th-18th century, but we must accept what they teach is "God's Word."

I contend it is just a parroting of dogmas invented long ago and by mutual contract the definition of God's Word will be strictly limited to what our Creeds, Doctrines, Dogmas and Church history filter. Many or most were curated in distinct geographies. Calvinism in France and Switzerland. Lutheranism in Germany and Scandinavia. Anglicanism and Methodism in England. Presbyterians in Scotland.

For the vast majority of 20th Century Christianity God's Word, the Word of God is just the ancient voices of petty theologists of state and anti-state battles and vicious political persecutions of the sects that today we parrot. Each totally rejected the Word of God according to their competition.

In America unique God's Word arose from the Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 7th Adventists and the two founding branches of Pentecostalism.

Given that none agree on that is in or out of God's Word and each defines God's Word individually and exclusively, how do each of us view the Word of God? What is your definition?

The Bible , for me , if it isn't in there then it isn't the Truth.

 

[lrs68]

In literal terms God's Word is whenever the Old Testament clarifies thus saith God, the Lord God, or whenever we see Christophonies.

There's specific separation between God telling a Prophet something and the Prophet repeating it.

In the New Testament anything Red Letter or what Yeshua said Himself.

Whenever Paul clarifies this is what God told him.


These would be literal examples.

 

[GWH]

Well, the question would be, what single object could fit the description of blood, water and spirit and how could such an object connect to the resurrection.

That is not a multiple choice question, but my answer is a Christian, who was born with water (amniotic fluid), reborn because of the blood (atonement) of Christ, indwelt by the HS and therefore bound for glory (resurrection to heaven).

 

[rewriter]

That is not a multiple choice question, but my answer is a Christian, who was born with water (amniotic fluid), reborn because of the blood (atonement) of Christ, indwelt by the HS and therefore bound for glory (resurrection to heaven).

That is actually one of the better answers I have seen. But might I suggest you think like a first century person rather than a 21st century one? Reconcile Galatians 3:1 with 1 John 5:8 if you can, while remembering that in the 1st century most people were well aware of what we call "classical literature, and I know that many today have never really studied the classics, especially Plato who is important here.

 

[GWH]

That is actually one of the better answers I have seen. But might I suggest you think like a first century person rather than a 21st century one? Reconcile Galatians 3:1 with 1 John 5:8 if you can, while remembering that in the 1st century most people were well aware of what we call "classical literature, and I know that many today have never really studied the classics, especially Plato who is important here.

Thanks, and I will stick with that answer unless you enlighten me with a better one.

 

[dkontner]

Isaiah 55​

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

John 1​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Matthew 4​

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

[rewriter]

Thanks, and I will stick with that answer unless you enlighten me with a better one.

As long as you are content that it checks all the boxes I will not argue with you. But I would remind you that the Bible's own standard requires that the evidence be able to be investigated by anyone, a believer or not.

And I suspect that you are like I was for over 40 years, knowing what the answer cannot be and then looking for an acceptable one. The answer I found required rethinking a lot of what I "knew" and would not have been accepted at earlier times but rather have prompted reasons why it could not be correct. I can address all those challenges now, but not without a lot of explanations and citations, not because it is so complex, but rather because there are so many objections possible that need to have their flaws pointed out.

And I would note that since 100 CE, the following is a complete and exhaustive list of every person and every institution that has nor corrupted scripture in their theology in one way or another.





Now anyone or any institution not on list has, to my mind at least, corrupted scripture in some way to make their desired point.

 

[Gideon300]

Well, I have studied a bit on such subjects, and the OT canon was established by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia, in the late 1st century, it was later accepted as Christian scripture by the Catholic church, with the Apocrypha in an undetermined status. Our NT canon was accepted later by the Catholic church, so the Catholic church did the basic work to establish the Protestant canon of scripture. Then when Martin Luther set to work to translate the scriptures into German for the emerging Protestant movement, he was originally planning to include the Apocrypha as the Catholic church did not accept it but it was included in the Septuagint, the version of the OT that was heavily used in the early church. Then while translating the Apocrypha, he found a single verse that seemed to support the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, so Luther decided to reject the Apocrypha. When Luther rejected the Apocrypha, the Catholic church decided it must belong and so added it to the canon of the OT and then closed the canon, something the Protestants have not done.

However, if one does look closely at how the canon of the NT was established, it looks a lot like political motivations behind much of it. Hebrews was allocated Pauline authorship, even though its authorship was questioned. Revelation was pushed by the western church while the Shepherd of Hermas was preferred by the eastern church. The western church used the influence of the emperor to make certain that Revelation was included, despite questions about who was the John that wrote it as it clearly was a different John than the rest of the Johannine literature, and the Shepherd was excluded. And there are several other works that were considered for inclusion, often with good support, but were ultimately rejected. But it was also acknowledged by the early church that both John and Mark had been tampered with, but the tampered versions were accepted.

The history of establishing the canon of scripture is anything but pretty, in fact it looks a lot like human-based political decisions.

Whatever it looks like, you should know that God watches over His word. He ensured that His word would be faithfully recorded. Lord Jesus used God's word to defeat Satan in the wilderness. Lord Jesus quoted God's word often. The New Testament quotes the old extensively.

The Bible is a spiritual book for spiritual people. If you analyse it purely by logic and reason, you will end up with nothing but confusion. And if all you do is pick holes in what you don't understand anyway, you will end up remaining a spiritual infant.

The Bible has informed countless Christians who have greatly blessed the church. What are you doing to further the kingdom of God?​

 

[rewriter]

Whatever it looks like, you should know that God watches over His word. He ensured that His word would be faithfully recorded. Lord Jesus used God's word to defeat Satan in the wilderness. Lord Jesus quoted God's word often. The New Testament quotes the old extensively.

The Bible is a spiritual book for spiritual people. If you analyse it purely by logic and reason, you will end up with nothing but confusion. And if all you do is pick holes in what you don't understand anyway, you will end up remaining a spiritual infant.

The Bible has informed countless Christians who have greatly blessed the church. What are you doing to further the kingdom of God?​

I have been studying the word and examining my own assumptions. Given that scripture does not assure us that humans have not changed it, but rather that it has been preserved for us by God is a human assumption, that is one thing to question. Until the latter part of the 20th century for example the reference in Matthew to a prophesy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene was perplexing, as no such prophesy could be found. Likewise, until the same timeframe, Jesus's response to John the Baptist's question about whether or not he was the one did not fit with any known scripture, but then different scriptural sources were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pretty much unknown for likely at least 1700 years, and the mysteries were resolved. But if God preserves His word perfectly, why the 1700 year gap?

Likewise, while most textual differences are minor, in one passage the same location is described in four different ways, one of which is clearly a compromise. These are: the city of destruction, the city of righteousness, the city of the sun and the city of righteousness destined for destruction. Would you care to reconcile all these different wordings of the same verse?

Scripture also makes multiple references to currently unknown sources to back itself up. What happened to these sources that are mentioned in support of scripture?

And where in scripture does it proclaim itself as a spiritual book only for spiritual people and not subject to logic and reason or is that another assumption you tell yourself to avoid having to use logic and reason when studying? I agree that avoiding logic and reason can make studying easier, but that ignores the question of why did God grant us the ability to use logic and reason, and even seem to encourage their use when He told us to study the scripture and show oneself approved.

 

[Gideon300]

I have been studying the word and examining my own assumptions. Given that scripture does not assure us that humans have not changed it, but rather that it has been preserved for us by God is a human assumption, that is one thing to question. Until the latter part of the 20th century for example the reference in Matthew to a prophesy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene was perplexing, as no such prophesy could be found. Likewise, until the same timeframe, Jesus's response to John the Baptist's question about whether or not he was the one did not fit with any known scripture, but then different scriptural sources were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, pretty much unknown for likely at least 1700 years, and the mysteries were resolved. But if God preserves His word perfectly, why the 1700 year gap?

Likewise, while most textual differences are minor, in one passage the same location is described in four different ways, one of which is clearly a compromise. These are: the city of destruction, the city of righteousness, the city of the sun and the city of righteousness destined for destruction. Would you care to reconcile all these different wordings of the same verse?

Scripture also makes multiple references to currently unknown sources to back itself up. What happened to these sources that are mentioned in support of scripture?

And where in scripture does it proclaim itself as a spiritual book only for spiritual people and not subject to logic and reason or is that another assumption you tell yourself to avoid having to use logic and reason when studying? I agree that avoiding logic and reason can make studying easier, but that ignores the question of why did God grant us the ability to use logic and reason, and even seem to encourage their use when He told us to study the scripture and show oneself approved.

Since you reject the Bible as God's word and are doing your best to discredit it, I see no point in playing your games.

 

[Jon777]

Why not require pastors in a particular denomination, especially Confessional denominations, to adhere to that church’s officially stated doctrines?

If I go into a Baptist church that states that they adhere to the First or Second London Confession of Faith, I do not expect to hear Arminian free-will preached from the pulpit.

Having more experience with Baptist churches, I’ve found that many claim to hold to a particular Confession of Faith and yet you wonder if the Pastor has even read it. Of course, most Baptists in our day hold to a “No Creed but the Bible” viewpoint. God only knows what tripe you’ll hear out of the pulpit there, for the theology is as varied as the particular beliefs of that single Pastor and that changes along with the changes in the Pastor.

When I began to see I had been taught many errors in my home church, I purposely bought the Confessions of the Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists and Lutheran’s Standards. I was amazed at how much agreement there was on the cardinal doctrines. I was struck how that they all stated belief in predestination, and not by foreseen faith, but either single predestination or double. The doctrinal standards were in agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds on the Trinity, whether stated explicitly or not. I found the historic Protestant Reformation churches agreed on Cardinal doctrines.

If a church has no stated confession of faith, how do I know what that church’s idea is of the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”?

“Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3, RSV)

When it comes to various translations of God’s word, I keep in mind that Jesus and the Apostles seemed to most often be quoting from the Greek OT. That does not always agree with the Hebrew OT, so I eased up on too strong a preference for just the KJV.

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

For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. (Jas 3:16, KJV)

 

[rewriter]

Since you reject the Bible as God's word and are doing your best to discredit it, I see no point in playing your games.

So, you make another assumption to protect your position and ignore that your position actually contradicts the Bible. Hint, the Bible claims that JESUS is God's word and also includes phrases like "not God's word but mine". Now unless you wish to claim that God is lying when He claims that something in the Bible is not His word, and I believe that the Bible also claims that God's word is true, which implies no lying, you are facing a contradiction to claim that the Bible is God's word.

But such is your problem, not mine.

 

[WayneNSO]

So, you make another assumption to protect your position and ignore that your position actually contradicts the Bible. Hint, the Bible claims that JESUS is God's word and also includes phrases like "not God's word but mine". Now unless you wish to claim that God is lying when He claims that something in the Bible is not His word, and I believe that the Bible also claims that God's word is true, which implies no lying, you are facing a contradiction to claim that the Bible is God's word.

But such is your problem, not mine.

That sounds to me like a lot of twisting of words to make your point true in your mind

 

[rewriter]

That sounds to me like a lot of twisting of words to make your point true in your mind

Definitely someone is twisting scripture, but when scripture itself claims not to be God's word in places, who am I to argue with that portion of scripture. Now those people who claim the entire Bible is God's word are, to my mind, the ones who are twisting scripture to find a way around scripture's own denials. Citing 2 Timothy 3:16 also does not get around this issue as no one is certain as to exactly what Paul meant with the term "theopneustos", all anyone has are assumptions. The term clearly references God and spirit, but what exactly was Paul saying and was he intentionally trying to avoid the term meaning "God filled", often used with regards to scripture although never in the Bible, which carried connotations that might have been problematic? Deliberately avoiding that term could well be consistent with a good bit of both Paul's writings as well as with other NT writers

 

[WayneNSO]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Θεόπνευστος Theopneustos. This word means, God-inspired - from Θεός Theos, “God,” and πνέω pneō, “to breathe, to breathe out.”
The same idea as God breathing into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life Genesis 2:7, and also the Saviour breathed on his disciples, and said, “receive ye the Holy Ghost;” John 20:22.