What do you mean when you say, "The Bible is the Word of God"?

We have this treasure in earthen vessels, paul said of us. I think that includes the bible. The treasure is still the treasure, even in a old container. I think your hope is in the Living One who is within you. Only He is beautiful, perfect and infallible! The Living Word!

If my husband never spoke to me I certainly wouldn't believe he loves me. His word is important.

The age of the Word matters not. My husband loves me, he has made promises to me. How do I know he loves me? By his words to me. I trust his word. And I love to hear his words to me. If my husband never spoke to me I certainly wouldn't believe he loves me. His word is important. He has proven I can trust his word. How much more so with God's Word and promises to us?!!

I don’t think the Bible is fallible. I think men’s understanding is. Since you brought up the recipe book...

Let’s say it was a recipe book that was translated from a different language. Even though it makes perfect sense read by a chef from the place of origin, with an understanding of the equipment used, and methods of preparation, it might mean something different to someone who has never used a combi-oven, or knows that creme fresh isn’t fresh cream. (I was a chef for many years). Although the recipe is infallible, the user of the cookbook isn’t. Just food for thought. (Pun intended).

You have such great wisdom and discernment, my friend, and yet I yearn to meet a mute woman. 😆

Fair enough Kayla. I,m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I,m simply asking questions and sharing my thoughts.

Mind you, I bet you wouldn't say your husband is infallible and inerrant!

I just want to reiterate that it is NOT my intention to rob anyones faith, or deceive them or convince them of anything. Some people seem to think I,m in league with the devil, or something. These are just my thoughts after my own research and contemplation.....I share them because it feels good to share and ask questions. And I,m always willing to learn. Thankyou all for your responses ( even from the people who think I,m up to no good!). Thankyou Roughsoul ( I think you,ve responded to me the most) for your patience and time in responding.

Hey, hey now, let's not get all crazy. He's Mr. Right, not "Always Right". Actually he is very wise in an understated way. He's not loud,always giving his opinion or seeking the limelight. When he does give his opinion it's usually right.My comparision was how important God's Words are to us. That if we can put our trust in our loved ones word, then we can certainly put our trust in God's inspired Word.

ps. So far I haven't seen you be nasty with anyone. I don't mind debate and sooner or later we'll find something we agree on

If the Bible is infallible then why is the word 'defense' misspelled twice in the book of Ecclesiastes as 'defence'?

Of course I don't expect anyone who believes that Bible is the word of God to think that the variation in spelling is indicative of whether or not the writings in the Bible are infallible. Clearly anyone who claims the Bible is the infallible word of God would not believe that the Bible could be fallible, unless they themselves were fallible.

Actually, the variation in the spelling has nothing to do with the issue of infallibility but rather is evidence that the word of God evolves. I imagine this might upset some of those who claim the word of God is the same yesterday, today and it does not change, well that is until they read John 5:25, then listening to their interpretation one can only conclude that it randomly mutates.

However there are some amongst us that will tell you the Bible is the word of God yet deny the teacher and claim that man developed the ability to write the spoken word by his own ingenuity and intellect. So does believing the words that someone says or writes make it the word of God simply because they believe they are?

After a reasonable time, one should leave off trying to present the truth when it is not welcome.

"""Your explanation for the two accounts seems convoluted. And if I may say, you are coming up with theories about the death of Judas that seeks to tie the two versions together. """

others are a little "cray cray"

If the Bible is infallible then why is the word 'defense' misspelled twice in the book of Ecclesiastes as 'defence'?

Of course I don't expect anyone who believes that Bible is the word of God to think that the variation in spelling is indicative of whether or not the writings in the Bible are infallible. Clearly anyone who claims the Bible is the infallible word of God would not believe that the Bible could be fallible, unless they themselves were fallible.

Actually, the variation in the spelling has nothing to do with the issue of infallibility but rather is evidence that the word of God evolves. I imagine this might upset some of those who claim the word of God is the same yesterday, today and it does not change, well that is until they read John 5:25, then listening to their interpretation one can only conclude that it randomly mutates.

However there are some amongst us that will tell you the Bible is the word of God yet deny the teacher and claim that man developed the ability to write the spoken word by his own ingenuity and intellect. So does believing the words that someone says or writes make it the word of God simply because they believe they are?

To me the Bible is made up of manuscripts that has been decided upon by the catholic church as authoritative and inspirational. Irenaeus, the early church father, had 21 books that he considered authoritative. And I don't think the final form that the bible took was finally settled until the 1500s at the Council of Trent (Revelation was a late entry for inclusion). To this day there are slight variations between the catholic, protestant and orthodox versions of scripture. Also modern scholarly analysis of the letters of St. Paul have shown that it wasn't the same person who wrote them all (the letters to Timothy, for example, were not written by the person who wrote collosians). So while scripture is useful for inspiring and edifying us, I don't consider it absolute or infallible. To me the Word of God is not a book, but Christ. And as we read it the word of God is the meaning and wisdom Christ gives us as we read scripture.
For the first 500 years of Christianity there was no bible as we understand it. So they couldn't have thought of the "Word of God" as the bible we have.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what your understanding is. Thanks guys. X

I did not posting the truth for Dibby53's benifit.. After seeing he was closed to the truth and did not want the truth i posted for the benifit of others who may have had their faith under threat by Dibby53's attacks on the Word of God..

Just read this from Dibby53 confirming that he does not want to aknowledge that the Word of God is truth.. He wants it to be false so he can disregard it and create a religion of his own liking..

I respectfully disagree with your search and information you have provided.

You need to look at what is Historical , the Eyewitnesses, and the data contextually. The issues with the RCC and what is known non-RCC stems from tradition and inspired and what is authoritative. In the RCC they say "these" all known to be the authoritative or inspired word of God because we said so. The RCC has made man the authority as to what is inspired i.e they believe tradition is also authoritative. Non-RCC says the word of God is authoritative because what is written makes it so be cause God is the author. The word is because God said. Once we understood that Jesus is God and He is the word of God His testament is Supremely Authoritative. Therefore all writing in the NEW testament MUST as they are do from Acts to REV speak of Jesus and accepted HIM as Lord in the very context of all the gospels and epistle. The other books lacked 1. eye witnesses of Jesus 2. written after 100 AD 3. were pseudo because they who wrote them were not all agreeing in the literal Resurrection of Christ WHICH IS FOUNDATIONAL FOR the Christian faith and is the Measuring ROD for what is inspired word of God. IF Jesus is not accepted, IF Jesus did not quote it as HE did we see in the NEW Testament , and the writers were not Eye witnesses to Jesus od eyeswittneses of eyewitnesses they were not accepted.

Please remember:


Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Justin , Clement , Irenaeus who was The Disciple of John. all were eyewitnesses or eyewitnesses of the Apostles who taught them. They are all from the period 67 AD - 100AD. The word of God is completely without error sir. There is no such evidence that the writing of letters to Titus, I-II Timothy were not from Paul himself. To suggest that is unfounded.

The reason why you comment here:

"So they couldn't have thought of the "Word of God" as the bible we have."

is error because Jesus Himself Set the Standard. They had the Old Testament fully and completely as we do today period. We have Historical evidence of Christ. We have the writings and testimonies of Eyewitnesses which Paul speaks about in 1cor 15. OF the Resurrection we see the words of Jesus and HIS disciples carried down through the ages by men God as used to give us what we know to be the very word of God.

To me the Bible is made up of manuscripts that has been decided upon by the catholic church as authoritative and inspirational. Irenaeus, the early church father, had 21 books that he considered authoritative. And I don't think the final form that the bible took was finally settled until the 1500s at the Council of Trent (Revelation was a late entry for inclusion). To this day there are slight variations between the catholic, protestant and orthodox versions of scripture. Also modern scholarly analysis of the letters of St. Paul have shown that it wasn't the same person who wrote them all (the letters to Timothy, for example, were not written by the person who wrote collosians). So while scripture is useful for inspiring and edifying us, I don't consider it absolute or infallible. To me the Word of God is not a book, but Christ. And as we read it the word of God is the meaning and wisdom Christ gives us as we read scripture.
For the first 500 years of Christianity there was no bible as we understand it. So they couldn't have thought of the "Word of God" as the bible we have.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what your understanding is. Thanks guys. X

Hi CS1, Thankyou for your response. I have just been reading about Clement of Alexandria. By all accounts he sounds a fantastic learned man. The more I read about the Alexandrian church Fathers the more I seem to get closer to the heart of the Christian message. Clement wasnt born until about 150AD in Greece. ( Clement was a universalist, by the way, believing God would save everyone eventually. This would put him at odds with most modern day evangelicals! ).Irenaeus was born 130 AD.

My point about scripture is not that it is not authoritative. It is the "inerrant and infallible " bit that I stuggle with. People seem to constantly misunderstand me on this point. They talk in terms of me "attacking" the word of God. What I seek is more understanding. Who wrote them? Why, and who, decided what was canonical in forming the bible we have now? If we only have copies ( and they can vary. Mark's gospel has a different ending in some copies) then how do we know the original manuscript was "inerrant"?

The matter concerning Paul's genuine letters and the ones attributed to him is controversial, I,ll give you that. It is a matter of ongoing debate.

But all this doesn't negate the Bible. It makes it richer, more interesting.... it means I have to dig a bit deeper for understanding.

Oh Adstar, what else can I say? Since you ascribe the worst of motives to me, and haven't dealt with any of my substantive points perhaps we should agree to disagree. Peace x