Below I quote JOJ from another thread (which I did not want to derail). I thought these four questions might deserve some further discussion. But before answering the questions, I want to define our terms. Notice that John of Japan changes terms along the way. First, he uses "Bible", "Biblical", and then "Bible" again (from the portion quoted above). He introduces the quiz as "if you really know the Bible on preservation". But then he switches to a different term in four of the next five references: "Word of God" three times; and "NT" for the last question (using "Bible" only once). He returns to the previous term following the quiz with "the answers are all there in the Bible". I'm not accusing John of doing this consciously or deliberately for any effect. My point is that John uses the two terms synonymously. I think I can demonstrate that the "Word of God" (sometimes just the "word" or other variations) is not the same thing as the "Bible" (the collected 66 books). I'm not trying to be 'picky'; I think there is an important distinction. We know that the English word spelt b-i-b-l-e itself does not occur in the text of the KJV. Within its own pages, how then does the sacred written text refer to itself? Usually as the "scriptures"; sometimes with terms like "law of Moses" or "his commandments". It is doubtful the term "Word of God" is ever used to refer to 1st century apostolic Greek writings (New Testament) alone, or in combination with Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) which is commonly called the 'Bible'. Foremost, "The Word of God" is Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:13, John 1:1-8, Hebrews 11:3, 2 Peter 3:5). But when the "Word" is not referring to the Son of God, it is also not referring to written documents. In the Old Testament the term "word of God" usually means a prophetic revelation (see 1 Samuel 9:27, 1 Kings 12:22, 1 Chronicles 17:3). The phrase "word of the Lord" is more prevalent in the OT. And here are just a few NT examples (from KJV) -- So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. (Acts 19:20)Historically speaking, there was no Protestant 66-book 'Bible' at the time of the acts of the apostles; nor does this seem to be a description of the expansion of the Hebrew canon that God had closed 400 years earlier. And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, (Luke 5:1)Again, the books of the New Testament were not yet written during the time of Christ on Earth; the earliest NT books appearing no sooner than 20 to 30 years after Christ's ascension. At best, this could only refer to the ancient Hebrew writings; it is doubtful that Jesus had a scroll with Him at this occasion (a few verses later the statement "when he had left speaking" is given, that is, He was not reading, although He may have quoted from memory). The people could listen to the scrolls being read at the Temple; they were present to hear something else. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:31)The recitation of Hebrew scriptures does not really fit the context here; boldness was not required to proclaim the Hebrew scriptures. I believe they were proclaiming the Gospel as they had lived it firsthand. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:37-39)Jesus told the Jewish leaders that although they had searched their "scriptures", they had not received the Father's "word" (two different things). Now, if John's first three questions are asked of "scriptures" rather than the "Word of God" there may be a different results.