Is The Bible Inerrant?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But I like a scripture that leads us to God and Christ, not a scripture that is so perfect that it is inerrant, and we can then fight over what that means. Many doctrinal statements are more certain about the inerrancy of scripture than they are about the person of Christ.

And herein lies the essence of the word of God.

I have long been convinced that all the "inerrancy" talk really is designed to discredit the value of God's word. What persuades me is not the painstaking way the scribes have passed down copies of the original autographs, but how Jesus Himself and the Apostles treated and quoted the scriptures.

God's word enables us to know about Him and to know Him, which is perhaps the most significant feature of the new covenant. The scriptures also provide us with excellent history, wisdom, song, etc. but they are all secondary to the primary goal of God's word. Jesus says, "be it unto you according to your faith." If you want to find flaws in the scripture, or to find "flaws" in God Himself, then you will indeed. God seems to have had little intention in merely providing us with a perfect and inerrant book.

Jesus Christ is the Logos of God. He is the message of God. It is interesting to note that the Greek word logos comes from lego, which is to gather, to assemble, to enumerate a collection, a list, a catalog, a narration. And so it has been with the word of God. The Bible was a growing collection of writings enumerating the knowing of God, a narration growing in detail and scope, for whosoever will to know God. To truncate the list, by supposedly knowing God as father Abraham did without some book, is to "truncate" the knowledge of the Logos of God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have long been convinced that all the "inerrancy" talk really is designed to discredit the value of God's word. What persuades me is not the painstaking way the scribes have passed down copies of the original autographs, but how Jesus Himself and the Apostles treated and quoted the scriptures.

And how is it that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the scriptures? Was it with painstaking accuracy? or did they get the meaning of it by different words? Sometimes in such a manner that the original source is occasionally debated or questioned.

I didn't start out to respond to that question, but to put something here that related to how we quote scripture. I was reading a quote in another thread that went as follows:

Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

I was struck by the fact that we either go to great extremes to say it exactly like one of the translations, or we simply copy it from some source without considering how it reads.

This is not a slam on anyone. We all do it. But when is the last time that you "shew" anyone anything? That you "knowest" anything? Or referred to someone else as "thee" or "thou"?

We treat the words of scripture as it sacred in their very form. We fight with understanding strange words (and often misunderstand them) because we unwittingly are stuck in the words rather than in the passages. I know that there was this constant battle with Steward on the other thread concerning the KJV, or more correctly the "received text" versions versus others.

While I wouldn't suggest trying to devise doctrine from them, the best reading is often the more strange paraphrases like The Message because it forces you to see the larger discussion and quit looking for the comfortable collection of specific words. It is nearly impossible to discover where certain things are by chapter and verse because that is not how the original was devised. Too often can't find a specific verse, even by content, but you can find the entirety of the passage to say what the specific verse, plus its context said.

I listen to a couple of different theology podcasts on occasion. Both are evangelical-based, and one is specifically an apologetics podcast. I tend to believe pretty consistently with both of them. But I too often find the importance of the things they cover (and that I believe) to be much lower than what they give them.

For example, one was covering the somewhat recent defection of the man who was the president of some evangelical society (think academics and theologians, not preachers and ministers) to become Roman Catholic. There are three different people who participate in discussions on this podcast and at one point they asked one who had been somewhat silent what he thought about a particular thing. His response was that, while he might have plenty to say about the practices of the RCC, he was certain that many of those following that way are genuine believers (and therefore Christians). While there might be many questions to raise, in his mind it was not about abandoning the faith, but in understanding it differently.

In other words, if you believe in Jesus, the fact that you say "Justification" and mean the entirety of the process from conversion through sanctification, or mean only the process of initial conversion is not a matter of faith. It is a doctrine that is unable to save or refuse salvation.

And it is too often in the process of fighting over these kinds of things that "inerrancy" comes into the discussion. The fight over the accuracy of scripture is seldom over its overall correctness relative to what it is trying to say, but its specific correctness within a specific interpretation so that it says a specific thing that is not otherwise definitely so.

So, in this way, I disagree with Ohio that the discussion of inerrancy is "designed to discredit the value of God's word." I think it is mostly designed to turn the narrative writings of centuries-old cultures into scientifically provable treatises on anything that is mentioned. Or insist that it is otherwise metaphorical and not intended to represent scientific fact. And the result of insisting on inerrancy is that any particular view becomes tenuous since just one verifiable fact that contradicts is evidence of error, therefore scripture becomes entirely not inerrant. That is the position that Christians put the Bible into by their insistence on inerrancy.

But if the Bible is designed to speak to the people it was written to so that they understood their creator and God within their world-view, then the fact that it was written with scientific errors would be expected since no one would have understood it if it had been scientifically accurate. The science was not the point. God was.

Today, we read the same text, now centuries ancient, not to discover how scientifically foolish those people were, but to see the same God. And to discover His working in this very different age. The Bible, as written, has much scientific and historical error. But it is irrelevant.

Someone pointed out that many of the genealogies are written according to a pattern. From one major person to another was always a certain number of generations (no matter how many generations there actually were). There is an ongoing debate concerning the precise time of Egyptian slavery for this reason. But the precise length of time of the slavery was never the point and never relevant. That they were slaves was. That it had been about some length of time might have been. That some genealogy was accurately describing every generation from person A to person B was not.

God is still revealed consistent with the truth whether the genealogy is complete or partial. The revelation of God is true whether Kings and Chronicles got the chronology of kings spot-on. It is true whether Paul was really just expressing his opinion or God was writing a hard and fast rule that has to be followed.

And how do you follow a rule that doesn't speak against slavery, but declares that you must love your slaves as you love yourself. That you must serve them within the context of the church. And on and on.

It isn't by declaring more and more "this is exactly how it is" rules but by recognizing the principles. Obedience. Faith. Love. Righteousness (and a hunger for it). Service, not ruling.

Last (in an already too long post), I work in tax. One of the continually frustrating things about tax work is that there are continually more and more complex regulations. And many of them could have been written so much more easily. But the consideration is that if you make them too simple, there will be uncertainties and then everything will go to court. But that will only be true for a while. As long as the regulations are specific and complex, they are never going to cover everything. So there will continually be facts that fall outside the rules that will go to court. And the courts will decide differently than what the government wants. So they will return to write yet another regulation to cover yet another specific set of facts.

And on it goes.

But the Bible is written. The "edict" in Revelation is probably not speaking about the whole of the canon of scripture. But we treat it as so (and probably rightly). My observation is that those who are busily nit-picking the words of scripture are seeking more rules to put on people. Or looking for loopholes. The only ones suggesting that the Bible really supports the continuance of any kind of slavery are the nit-pickers. Those who read it as it to find God see that it can never support slavery where it is not already found. And even where it is found, it has to affect how it is carried out until it eventually disappears.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And how is it that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the scriptures? Was it with painstaking accuracy? or did they get the meaning of it by different words? Sometimes in such a manner that the original source is occasionally debated or questioned.

So, in this way, I disagree with Ohio that the discussion of inerrancy is "designed to discredit the value of God's word." I think it is mostly designed to turn the narrative writings of centuries-old cultures into scientifically provable treatises on anything that is mentioned. Or insist that it is otherwise metaphorical and not intended to represent scientific fact. And the result of insisting on inerrancy is that any particular view becomes tenuous since just one verifiable fact that contradicts is evidence of error, therefore scripture becomes entirely not inerrant. That is the position that Christians put the Bible into by their insistence on inerrancy.

I'm honestly ... frankly speaking ... not exactly sure how you are disagreeing with me.

But, back to your initial question. Jesus often did not quote from the Hebrew text, rather He used the Greek Septuagint translation o the Hebrew scriptures. I'm sure that ticked off the Scribes and Pharisees.

The writer of Hebrews did the same.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus often did not quote from the Hebrew text, rather He used the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures. I'm sure that ticked off the Scribes and Pharisees.

The writer of Hebrews did the same.

The Masoretic/LXX(Septuagint) issue certainly throws a wrench into "inerrancy" discussions. Lee's RecV uses the Masoretic as its textual OT base, as do most Christian Bibles (Eastern Orthodox being notable exceptions).

This may lead to problems where the OT and NT don't "agree" with each other if the NT writer used LXX. In the "Psalms" thread, I noted the way Lee tried to reconcile Hebrews 10:5 with Psalm 40:6.

The writer of Hebrews, quoting LXX, says,

10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.
9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.
10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.(NIV)

Note the Hebrews author's additional commentary in vv. 8-10, esp. the bolded part in v.10.

The (Masoretic version) Psalm says,

40:6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—
but my ears you have opened—
burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.
7 Then I said, “Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.
8 I desire to do your will, my God;
your law is within my heart.”(NIV)

Lee et al used the Masoretic text and translated it as "You have prepared(lit. 'bored') ears for Me", and then wrote "This was quoted by the apostle Paul in Heb. 10:5 as 'a body You have prepared for Me.' The boring of a slaves ears indicates that the master required the slave's obedience... Paul interpreted the boring of the ears as the preparing of a body, in which Christ offered Himself to God..."

Actually, most scholars don't think Paul authored Hebrews, because first of all the Greek is so different, and secondly the Hebrews author heard the gospel from the disciples (2:3), but Paul repeatedly presented his revelation as not from men but from God (Gal 1:1, 1:11-12; also 2 Cor. 1:1). So it would have been quite a change for Paul to present his personal testimony in that manner.

But authorship aside, how can someone say that a NT writer purposely altered the (Masoretic) text when that writer was clearly quoting another version? Especially when the Masoretic text didn't exist until after the NT was written? Were Lee and the editorial team at LSM unaware, or did they know it and ignore it, in an attempt to "reconcile the texts"? Or were they just being sloppy? I don't know.

In any event, we have to adjust to the idea that there are different versions of scripture, that they don't all "agree" word-for-word with each other, and that none of this should bother a mature believer in Christ one bit. The fact that so little variation exists after several thousand years of transmission speaks to the careful stewardship these texts deservedly received.

God did an excellent job, passing along His Holy Word through generation after generation of fallible and errant humankind. I'd say it was rather, ahem, inspired.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talking to a former LC friend the other day. He mentioned that he has one Nee book by 4 different publishers, and they are all quite different.

I wanted to put Ohio's comment into this thread; it shows the difficulty of maintaining textual fidelity, when the transmittors also have editorial bias (as many do). The biblical texts passed through human hands for literally thousands of years but they still came to us quite well preserved. Contrast that to the fate of Nee's writings in less than 100 years!

The discovery of the pre-Christian-era Dead Sea Scrolls, containing extant texts such as Isaiah and Genesis and Psalms which were nearly identical with today's versions, gives strong confirmation to the textual fidelity of our modern Christian Scriptures.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to put Ohio's comment into this thread; it shows the difficulty of maintaining textual fidelity, when the transmittors also have editorial bias (as many do). The biblical texts passed through human hands for literally thousands of years but they still came to us quite well preserved. Contrast that to the fate of Nee's writings in less than 100 years!

The discovery of the pre-Christian-era Dead Sea Scrolls, containing extant texts such as Isaiah and Genesis and Psalms which were nearly identical with today's versions, gives strong confirmation to the textual fidelity of our modern Christian Scriptures.

Nee's messages were never written by him. He shared in workers' meetings without audio or video recordings. Each note-taker recorded his own version of the message. Each translator/publisher then took these notes in Chinese and embellished them into an English book.

It's no wonder that Lee's versions are so different from others. Within the Recovery, we were always convinced that "ours" was the best.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee's messages were never written by him. He shared in workers' meetings without audio or video recordings. Each note-taker recorded his own version of the message. Each translator/publisher then took these notes in Chinese and embellished them into an English book.

I understand your point, and think that it highlights the challenge to many of the Christian gospel testimonies, which probably passed through an even longer and more tortuous "oral tradition" before becoming finalized as written documents.

The fact that there is so much agreement shows an amazing commonality of purpose, and the different gospel accounts' not being identical reinforces this. Were all their details perfectly synchronous, it would speak to some later "redactor" who basically bulldozed the texts into his idea of "agreement". The fact that God (largely) preserved the texts from such heavy-handed treatment is amazing. Think of how many generations have trembled before these words!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually, most scholars don't think Paul authored Hebrews, because first of all the Greek is so different, and secondly the Hebrews author heard the gospel from the disciples (2:3), but Paul repeatedly presented his revelation as not from men but from God (Gal 1:1, 1:11-12; also 2 Cor. 1:1). So it would have been quite a change for Paul to present his personal testimony in that manner.

Years ago I read much about the author-dilemma of the book of Hebrews. Then I realized the solution was staring me in the face. Paul is ruled out because of the points you mentioned. Luke is suggested to solve the language issues, but ruled out because he lacked Jewish training.

But were not Paul and Luke almost inseparable? The letter probably was written in the early 60's after Paul was arrested in Jerusalem. He spent a considerable amount of time under Felix's care, and the incredible detail of these events proves that Luke was nearby. After Paul's "warm reception" at the temple, it was a wise decision to write anonymously, since he was still so heavily burdened for his kinsmen according to the flesh..

I believe it was this period of time when Luke was engaged in his literary works. Living near Palestine, he could research the eye-witness accounts for his gospel and the early parts of Acts. Perhaps Theophilus helped sponsor his work. Luke is the only N.T. author with the command of the Greek language mandated by Hebrews. That's why I feel Hebrews is a corroboration between Paul and Luke, the former preparing the drafts, and the latter polishing the book we now have.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I feel Hebrews is a [collaboration] between Paul and Luke, the former preparing the drafts, and the latter polishing the book we now have.

This is an attractive idea on several counts. The author occasionally writes of "we" and "us", which is reminiscent of the latter part of Acts, when Luke was now on the scene. It certainly seems to have come from within Paul's cohort, given the salutations at the end. But to simply say, "Paul must have written the epistle to the Hebrews" really doesn't do justice to this remarkable document. It could also have had considerable (or even primary) input from Barnabas, Apollos (whom Luke called "...a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" [Acts 18:24]), Priscilla and Aquila, etc.

At the very least, the admission in 2:3 diminishes the notion that it was exclusively Paul. Someone else's pen, and even voice, was likely involved. And Luke would seem an obvious candidate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This is an attractive idea on several counts. The author occasionally writes of "we" and "us", which is reminiscent of the latter part of Acts, when Luke was now on the scene. It certainly seems to have come from within Paul's cohort, given the salutations at the end. But to simply say, "Paul must have written the epistle to the Hebrews" really doesn't do justice to this remarkable document. It could also have had considerable (or even primary) input from Barnabas, Apollos (whom Luke called "...a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" [Acts 18:24]), Priscilla and Aquila, etc.

At the very least, the admission in 2:3 diminishes the notion that it was exclusively Paul. Someone else's pen, and even voice, was likely involved. And Luke would seem an obvious candidate.

Interesting thought to suggest a collaborative work. God's sovereign arrangement was evident throughout this period of time. We never hear anything about Paul's personal life, and then suddenly in Jerusalem his sister's son hears of a plot on Paul's life. Being transferred to Felix, whose wife was Jewish, Paul was given many liberties while in custody, with the specific instruction that "no one should prevent his own people from attending to him."

Paul was thus held in "special" custody in northern Palestine for more than two years. He could have had access to all the brothers in Antioch, his home church, including Barnabas and Mark. We know that Luke's gospel, though synoptic like Matthew's and Mark's, was heavily influenced by Paul's burden for the Gentile world. During this time, Luke would have had ready access to all the holy land to interview sources for his gospel.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In any event, we have to adjust to the idea that there are different versions of scripture, that they don't all "agree" word-for-word with each other, and that none of this should bother a mature believer in Christ one bit. The fact that so little variation exists after several thousand years of transmission speaks to the careful stewardship these texts deservedly received.

God did an excellent job, passing along His Holy Word through generation after generation of fallible and errant humankind. I'd say it was rather, ahem, inspired.

Ahem ... Amen to that!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm honestly ... frankly speaking ... not exactly sure how you are disagreeing with me.

But, back to your initial question. Jesus often did not quote from the Hebrew text, rather He used the Greek Septuagint translation o the Hebrew scriptures. I'm sure that ticked off the Scribes and Pharisees.

The writer of Hebrews did the same.

Don't despair. The disagreement is minor.

You seemed to say that inerrancy was placed on scripture so that it could be refuted by secularists (or other non-Christians). I think that inerrancy was placed on scripture by Christians with a view to forcing it to become a modern, scientifically-sound document. It is only in the "why" of pushing inerrancy, not the strengths, problems, or results that we differ.

In other words, I think that to the extent that the discussion goes too far in forcing absolutely precise meaning that is consistent with known history, science, etc., inerrancy is a problem.

But if we remove inerrancy from the discussion, we return to a collection of writings that describe the God in whom we must have faith, not fact, to believe and follow. We eliminate the need to fight about the ancient forms of prose, poetry, etc., used in describing phenomenon for which they had no first-hand knowledge (creation, the fall, even the flood). The purpose was not a detailed, factual account of creation, etc., but a telling of the person and actions of God with respect to man. And the truth concerning God is accurately revealed even if precise science and history is not.

So don't fret over our minor disagreement. Who gave us inerrancy to argue over is not that important.

[Guest5]

Originally Posted by OBW

But if we remove inerrancy from the discussion, we return to a collection of writings that describe the God in whom we must have faith, not fact, to believe and follow. We eliminate the need to fight about the ancient forms of prose, poetry, etc., used in describing phenomenon for which they had no first-hand knowledge (creation, the fall, even the flood). The purpose was not a detailed, factual account of creation, etc., but a telling of the person and actions of God with respect to man. And the truth concerning God is accurately revealed even if precise science and history is not.

So don't fret over our minor disagreement. Who gave us inerrancy to argue over is not that important.

Inerrancy is to God as errancy is to a book like the bible, whose going to agree to that proposition? Only one or two, maybe, and three would be too much by this time.

However, your suggestion of removing the inerrancy and returning to a collection of writings is much better than having us all in here arguing over and over again for this non-essential thing (inerrancy of the bible) that would lead not our soul to the gate of the kingdom of God. What would our soul benefit from elevating the bible to the level which is only fitted to the Lord God? Would God be delighted with us if we treat the bible as if it were God?

God is always here with us to help us resolve things which are impossible to all of us to fathom with, while the truth about inerrancy if placed or not placed in the bible is not a big thing for God to shed the light to us, be it in our dreams or in our daily activities in life. How we believe and trust God matters most of all to Him rather than believing the bible to be inerrant or not which is just a waste of time and effort on our part.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Juan

Inerrancy is to God as errancy is to a book like the bible, whose going to agree to that proposition? Only one or two, maybe, and three would be too much by this time.

However, your suggestion of removing the inerrancy and returning to a collection of writings is much better than having us all in here arguing over and over again for this non-essential thing (inerrancy of the bible) that would lead not our soul to the gate of the kingdom of God. What would our soul benefit from elevating the bible to the level which is only fitted to the Lord God? Would God be delighted with us if we treat the bible as if it were God?

God is always here with us to help us resolve things which are impossible to all of us to fathom with, while the truth about inerrancy if placed or not placed in the bible is not a big thing for God to shed the light to us, be it in our dreams or in our daily activities in life. How we believe and trust God matters most of all to Him rather than believing the bible to be inerrant or not which is just a waste of time and effort on our part.

Good post Juan. Thanks fer yer thoughts.

[OBW]

I like the way Juan puts it.

The funny thing is that while I would not join with those who argue so strongly for inerrancy, I do believe that the scriptures are true and accurate, but in a different sense than is meant by inerrancy. They accurately portray God — not always through a litany of details, but through what we see in the picture painted with the words spoken. That takes a lot of focus off of the specific words used and places it on the whole of the writing that is painting the picture.

That does not mean that specific words are not sometimes important. But I honestly think that it is a lot less often than so many would want to assert.

That is the reason that I am much happier reading the NIV or some other translation that is focused on the whole rather than on the words. I'm not a huge fan of The Message. But I do think that the way it removes you from the background of words and phrases that are familiar makes every passage speak with new life and light.

As to literal translations, I have a Christian friend that I get to see rather infrequently because he and his wife spend most of their time in remote parts of India meeting with others from various places in and around India. Their objective is to help in the translation of the Bible into the multitude of dialects found in that part of the world. He does not know any of these languages, but is working with locals who do, and who also know English. His objective is to help them understand what they are translating, then get them to give it back to him from their translation after they are done.

He recently told a story about a particular dialect/language that had a different way of saying "fisherman." It would literally translate to "killer of fish." That posed a unique problem when they went to translate "I will make you fishers of men." At that point, you have to throw the idea of a literal translation out the window and find a different metaphor — one that will say what Jesus said without using the "fisherman" analogy.

The Bible is very true and accurate in the things that it is true and accurate about. But it is not presumed to be true and accurate about what it clearly is wrapping in sideways and metaphorical terminology. The land produced vegetation, as well as living creatures. It is described as a 6-day adventure. But is the day literal?

And is it important?

Why is this account there? To lay out the hows of creation? Or to tell that it was God that ordained it? I say the latter. For all the textbooks on biology, geology, physics, etc., they can only deal with aspects of it all. How is a telling to a people who wouldn't understand the opening paragraph of a biology textbook going to understand the details of creation? So make the long story short. "I did it. It was a combination and series of parts that I will call days. Eventually, there was man. We had a falling out and that is why things are as they are now." Was "Adam" 6,000 or 60,000 years ago? Was the flood a simple 40 days of raining followed by a period of drying after which 8 people repopulated the earth, or something else told in this manner that was understandable at the time?

I honestly don't think haggling over these as items of "inerrancy" is worth the breath we would breathe during the process. Some will disagree. But that is my take.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Juan

What would our soul benefit from elevating the bible to the level which is only fitted to the Lord God? Would God be delighted with us if we treat the bible as if it were God?
....How we believe and trust God matters most of all to Him rather than believing the bible to be inerrant or not which is just a waste of time and effort on our part.

Juan,
First of all WELCOME TO THE FORUM! Please feel free to give us a short testimony when you get a chance.

The points you have made here are very well reasoned and to be well taken, however, in a sense, and in so many words, the Bible itself seems to tell us to treat it as if it were God Himself, or at the very least it is divine. Now when I say divine I don't mean simply "divinely inspired" - I mean divine as to it's very nature. I'll let the Bible itself speak to this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."(John 1:1,14)Please note that it does not say that "flesh became the Word" but rather "the Word became flesh". It was the Word that is ETERNAL, preexisting, and therefore not merely a "thought" or "inspiration". Also we see in Revelation that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was called the Word: "and his name is The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13)

The Bible does not have to agree with or confirm in any way science or scientific observations or discoveries, for we are only observing and discovering the very things that God himself created and the very "laws" that he himself established. Time and space are at his command. He can even contradict any established law if he so chooses (cf: parting of the Red Sea, making the Sun stand still, etc.)
-

[awareness]

Wow! UntoHim! How far do you take this kind of thinking?

I attended a Church of Christ church for awhile around here. One of the teachers told me that the Holy Spirit quit moving after Pentecost, and that today the Bible is the Holy Spirit.

Is that what you mean UntoHim?

[Guest5]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Juan,
First of all WELCOME TO THE FORUM! Please feel free to give us a short testimony when you get a chance.

Thank you UH, I'll try to attend to it later or "in due time."

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[The points you have made here are very well reasoned and to be well taken, however, in a sense, and in so many words, the Bible itself seems to tell us to treat it as if it were God Himself, or at the very least it is divine. Now when I say divine I don't mean simply "divinely inspired" - I mean divine as to it's very nature. I'll let the Bible itself speak to this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."(John 1:1,14)Please note that it does not say that "flesh became the Word" but rather "the Word became flesh". It was the Word that is ETERNAL, preexisting, and therefore not merely a "thought" or "inspiration". Also we see in Revelation that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was called the Word: "and his name is The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13)

Let us dissect what you have laid down on the operating table. In my high school days in my Biology subject, I dissected a frog alive without using anesthesia and I plan to do the dissection here in the same way that I did to that hapless frog then, my sincere apology to all who in one way or another may find the following words below (as my treatment of the bible) "unholy" in comparison with the way how they treat the bible in their whole life.

First thing first, is the bible the Lord God? Many people around the globe believe it (bible) is simply because of the verse you quoted in John 1:1. But whether we like it or not, the bible is simply a book which is no ordinary thing to any other book in this world with respect to its built and materials use to produce its entirety as a book in itself. It has no life in itself that it cannot speak, feel, see, and hear anything around it. How in the world of more than 6 billion people around the world wide web do you now say that "the Bible itself seems to tell us to treat it as if it were God Himself," is it really the bible which seems to tell us ....., or is it simply the speaker himself who seems to tell us his opinion about the bible?

Secondly, is the Word in John 1:1 the bible itself that we have in our possession today? Sadly and in total irony to what you claim about the bible as it were God himself, you yourself clearly identify who the Word is when you went over to John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13, and your identification points clearly not to the bible itself but to the Lord Jesus Christ who is The Living Word of God. Now, is the Lord Jesus Christ the bible itself? Was the bible with God from the very beginning? If not, your opinion about the bible wrt the issue at hand has no bearing at all to those verses you quoted above, hope you can go back to your previous post and do the necessary refitting works therein to rebuild and fortify your claim about the bible - as if it were God himself.

Last but not the least, God is divine and He alone is perfect and since the bible is not the Lord God, how can we say the bible is divine?