What is "God's Word?"

[WayneNSO]

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

It is obvious what is intended by using the word Theopneustos - But if you do not like the God of the Bible you are free to make your own God as many do

 

[rewriter]

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.

The term pneo also references wind and spirit. But none of the meanings necessarily mean inspired. Further, since Paul seems to have invented the word, only he knows for certain what he meant, and certainly no one some 1950+ years later knows for certain. But that is just the opinion of the Greek scholars who have extensively studied the issue. People with far less knowledge who are just reading a translation undoubtably know more.

 

[WayneNSO]

The term pneo also references wind and spirit. But none of the meanings necessarily mean inspired. Further, since Paul seems to have invented the word, only he knows for certain what he meant, and certainly no one some 1950+ years later knows for certain. But that is just the opinion of the Greek scholars who have extensively studied the issue. People with far less knowledge who are just reading a translation undoubtably know more.

My Greek Scholars are better than yours and My dad is bigger than your dad lol I cant force you to believe the Bible is God breathed so there is no point debating this with you further

 

[rewriter]

My Greek Scholars are better than yours and My dad is bigger than your dad lol I cant force you to believe the Bible is God breathed so there is no point debating this with you further

You claim that the breathed is just like what occurred with Adam. How did Adam work out after God breathed into him?

And since "pneo" can mean be associated with breath, wind or spirit, how can you be certain which meaning is meant? Are you certain the connection is to the verb "pneo" or to the noun "pneuma"? Why didn't Paul use the term for "God filled" which was also used to describe the source of scripture, why invent a new word?

You speak with confidence, but you also seem to want to avoid answering questions, can you offer any explanation as to why?

 

[biblestudent78]

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

The Bible was written by approximately 40 different human authors over a span of roughly 1,500 to 1,600 years. So humans have been on the earth for only 6,000 years and evolution is SO fast that a few "kinds" on the ark for 377 day became 1 trillion species in 6,000 years. The dinosaurs on the ark buried themselves under thousands of feet and the plant matter descended 15,000 - 25,000 under ground to make oil in 6,000 years. Abraham had 14 male children after he was 100 yrs old. God spoke through the mouth of an ass. And that the bible claims Israel had millions of soldiers but archeology shows Jerusalem of David and Solomon were 40 acres - 160 acres and they were the big cities and a population of perhaps 300,000 for all of Israel resulting in a maximum army of 18-40yr old of 30,000 untrained and ill-equipped men. God ordained plural marriage and that women were property owned by first their fathers and then were purchased by their husbands who could have as many wives as they could afford and as much sex outside marriages as they wanted except with other married woman. And God really want His people to kill men, women and children except the young virgins they could collect as sex slaves. Does sound like the God of the New Testament where marital purity is the standard and turn the other cheek the maxim? In about 500 BC God and his Satan tortured a man just to see what he would do. Revelation show both God and Jesus as viscerous torchers of people and mass killing of humans so that their blood will be neck high to a horse and run for 200 miles after years of horrible torture. God and Jesus are out to inflict massive and horrible bloodletting and pain on humans for years and years until there are no more "unrepentant" humans left on the earth. Yet God is Love and Jesus says to turn the other cheek and never retaliate and to love your neighbor as yourself.....so I can torcher and drain his blood for you.

Bible "truth."

 

[GWH]

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?​

Pure logic is divine reason, and comparing the NT with all other scriptures leads a rational person to believe it is GW.

 

[GWH]

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)

Speaking as someone ordained by the SBC, my advice is to develop a creed stating what is necessary to believe in order to be saved, because the Faith and Message includes too many secondary items.

 

[rewriter]

Pure logic is divine reason, and comparing the NT with all other scriptures leads a rational person to believe it is GW.

Your comment about all other scriptures raises the question in my mind as to what you consider "all other scriptures". Officially, only the Masoretic Text is OT scripture not the Septuagint or the variant texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet in many OT translations some passages from these other texts will appear. Do these also count as scripture to you, and if so, which version wins when they contradict, which they do in some passages, minor spelling errors are one thing but when a place's name changes drastically, such as "the city of the sun", "the city of righteousness or "the city of destruction" (the city of righteousness destined for destruction" is clearly ancient confusion and trying to cover a couple of bases) which scripture is correct? Or when entire verses appear in one text but not another, how does one determine if the passage is scripture or a human addition/deletion?

 

[Gideon300]

Pure logic is divine reason, and comparing the NT with all other scriptures leads a rational person to believe it is GW.

I'd never read the Bible. The man who led me to Jesus used the so called "Roman Road". He spent a few hours after I was born again to explain some of the fundamentals. Almost as an afterthought, he told me that the Bible was God's word. And somehow I knew that was true. And I've never doubted it.

If people wait until they've read the whole Bible and compare it with itself, they could spend years wondering. I do not accept that it is necessary. And if they go to seminary, often more time is spent trying to undermine God's word than teaching it.

 

[GWH]

Your comment about all other scriptures raises the question in my mind as to what you consider "all other scriptures". Officially, only the Masoretic Text is OT scripture not the Septuagint or the variant texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet in many OT translations some passages from these other texts will appear. Do these also count as scripture to you, and if so, which version wins when they contradict, which they do in some passages, minor spelling errors are one thing but when a place's name changes drastically, such as "the city of the sun", "the city of righteousness or "the city of destruction" (the city of righteousness destined for destruction" is clearly ancient confusion and trying to cover a couple of bases) which scripture is correct? Or when entire verses appear in one text but not another, how does one determine if the passage is scripture or a human addition/deletion?

I was referring to all that has been written in this world.

 

[GWH]

I'd never read the Bible. The man who led me to Jesus used the so called "Roman Road". He spent a few hours after I was born again to explain some of the fundamentals. Almost as an afterthought, he told me that the Bible was God's word. And somehow I knew that was true. And I've never doubted it.

If people wait until they've read the whole Bible and compare it with itself, they could spend years wondering. I do not accept that it is necessary. And if they go to seminary, often more time is spent trying to undermine God's word than teaching it.

Yes, and I share the necessary part aka the kerygma on that thread via the six point elaboration/creed.

 

[PaulThomson]

A personal perspective:
When the bible refers to the Word of God. It is referring to messages that comes from God independent of the mode of transmission. It is all about the message not the mode of transmission. Thus, a text can transmit the Word of God, but itself is not the word of God.

Just like sound waves can transmit the word of God, but sound waves themselves are not the word of God.

The scriptures often refer to the Word of God that do not include God's Word. Paul often speaks of the next part of my writings does not come from God, but they come from me. So it’s Paul’s personal message. In other places there are quotes from outside the bible.

The bible transmits the word of God, but itself is not the word of God. Over the centuries the bible has been in some form of continuous edition. As more manuscript evidence comes to light there are continuous updated versions. Entire verses found in the KJV, such as Acts 8:37 or 1 John 5:7, are often missing from the main text of modern translations. Modern Bibles often include footnotes at the end of Mark 16 (verses 9–20) indicating that the oldest manuscripts lack this resurrection account.

References to foundational doctrines, such as the deity of Christ or the Blood of Christ, are sometimes altered. For example, modern translations frequently omit "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14. The "Johannine Error," widely known as the Johannine Comma (or Comma Johanneum) in 1 John 5:7–8, is an inserted clause that explicitly states: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." The corrected translation after removing the scribal mistranslation reads: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement."This altered text was included in printed English Bibles for roughly 350 years, though it circulated in Latin manuscripts for over a millennium. It was determined that an ancient biblical scribe altered the actual Word of God to align with his theology.

Modern translator committees employ a contemporary, "thought-for-thought" (dynamic equivalence) or modern "word-for-word" (formal equivalence) approach to make the text immediately understandable to 21st century readers.

There are well over 100 complete but different English translations in print. As of June 2026, over 800 languages have at least a full Bible translation and none of which are an exact match word for word of our English translations just as there was not a word for word translation from ancient koine Greek to 21st century American English.

Thus, many have already begin to wrestle with the meaning of various texts. Hopefully this is with an open mind and not a knee jerk reaction to "protecting" our inherited or our self-educated version of God's Word. While many would claim the New Testament is inerrant or infallible on matters of the most importance in the New Testament, we all must be careful not insert our current understanding as the only interpretation plausible or possible. I have been a bible student for 72 yrs and my testimony is that I find new insights and hopefully better a understanding of the Bible continuously. Humility and reverence for our ability to fully grasp the Will of God is a requirement. Otherwise the New Testament quit communicating with us just as soon as you claim to know it all.

IMO, God’s word is Jesus Christ and those communications from God that come to us from the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and any interpretation/tramnslation of those words that convey accurately the meaning/s that He intended when He communicated them to us.
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?

 

[GWH]

GW = HS transmitted via truth, love and creation.

 

[biblestudent78]

GW = HS transmitted via truth, love and creation.

The creation part as defined as people born again into a new creation I support. His willingness (more or less ) to die on the cross demonstrates His love. IMHO, Jesus did not come to "transmit" the "truth." He was the truth. The Holy Spirit confirmed the truth of Jesus life, death and resurrection, but only Jesus had the power to author that transmission via His life, death and resurrection.

 

[rewriter]

The creation part as defined as people born again into a new creation I support. His willingness (more or less ) to die on the cross demonstrates His love. IMHO, Jesus did not come to "transmit" the "truth." He was the truth. The Holy Spirit confirmed the truth of Jesus life, death and resurrection, but only Jesus had the power to author that transmission via His life, death and resurrection.

The whole of creation is the result of God's word, not just part of it. But according to John 1, God's word became flesh and dwelt among us. Since only the Son has become flesh, I would not claim that the HS is God's word.

Now since both the creation and the scriptures are revelations of God, they cannot contradict if both are properly understood, but that also implies that if one has to abuse and pervert what science has learned to defend their understanding of scripture, I see reason to suspect that they are misunderstanding the scriptures. Now admittedly it is not easy to reconcile the two, but it is possible if one does not place unnecessary conditions.

 

[GWH]

The creation part as defined as people born again into a new creation I support. His willingness (more or less ) to die on the cross demonstrates His love. IMHO, Jesus did not come to "transmit" the "truth." He was the truth. The Holy Spirit confirmed the truth of Jesus life, death and resurrection, but only Jesus had the power to author that transmission via His life, death and resurrection.

Creation as indicated by Rom. 1:20.
Love as indicated by Rom. 5:6-8.
Truth as indicated by John 1:1-14.
GW = HS as indicated by John 6:63 & Rom. 5:5.
Jesus is God in the human dimension.

 

[PaulThomson]

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?

Something/I screwed up my formatting to my reply to the OP. I have extracted it from its hiding place in the middle of @biblestudent78 ’s OP.

IMO, God’s word is Jesus Christ and those communications from God that come to us from the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and any interpretation/tramnslation of those words that convey accurately the meaning/s that He intended when He communicated them to us.
I would like to explore your definition of "God's Word."