Word of God/Word of Truth?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salamander, Apr 26, 2008.

  1. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the topic about I Tm 2:15, some one said
    It seems that some one is pitting the word of God against the word of Truth, but they are synonomous or the last statement implies the Gospel Message isn't found in the word of God.

    If the word of God isn't exclusively the written Scriptures, and not limited to the New Testament, then where else is the word of God found and why isn't that offering considered the Canon of Scripture which we KNOW is the word of God?

    I'm sorry some one might believe what is quoted above, but it seems like a subtle effort to attack the voracity of the Scriptures.:godisgood:

    ( This is not an effort to rehash what has already been established that study does require diligence to be effective)
     
  2. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see by the "no response" to this that my suspicions are true; that the above quotation was the futile effort at making a point using false information.

    What is really scary is some one who argues in the BV&T forum using this "strategy" could ever be taken seriously and thereby affect the idealologies of the simple and unsuspecting.

    To think that the word of Truth is somehow separate, or even could be separated, from the word of God in its identity is absolute HERESY!:mad:
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Because of the similarity of terminology the following explanation may seem to get confusing at places, but I'll give it a try (I hope the readers will also).

    Today, the common use of the phrase "word of God" is meant in a manner that is synonymous with our 'Bible' (the complete canonical scriptures, that is the combination of 66 books from the ancient holy Hebrew writings and 1st century apostolic Greek writings).

    The exact three-word phrase "word of God" occurs in the KJV Old Testament just a few times. I think the first appearance of "word of God" is at 1 Kings 12:22 (I have included verse 23 and the first part of 24) --
    But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,
    Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying,
    Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel...​

    It is very clear here that the "word of God" was received by the prophet in some sort of 'audible' manner (as opposed to a written revelation) and was then passed along to the intended audience at that time as an authoritative message directly from The Almighty in a verbal form (not as a written document). Shemaiah didn't read this particular "word of God" and he didn't read it to Rehoboam either. Perhaps it should be explicitly stated that the "word of God" is not one individual phoneme; obviously, there are many 'words' in God's message here. Therefore, because the meaning of the phrase is not the precise equivalent of the literal meaning of the individual words, "word of God" is actually an idiom.

    There are very similar phrases (such as just "word" without the words "of God" immediately following) but I am restricting the focus specifically to the exact phrase "word of God" to keep the discussion managable. In fact, the parallel passage at 2 Chronicles 11 for the above example does not have "word of God" but rather the equivalent phrase "word of the Lord". The term "word of God" in 1 Kings 12 essentially refers to a prophetic message (see also 1 Chronicles 17:3). We probably don't have every single prophetic 'word' ever spoken captured in the OT scrolls. The only other occurrence of "word of God" is in Proverbs (30:5) where the context does not specify the medium (verbal, written, or something else [like a dream]). I interpret this verse as being inclusive of all forms of God's revelation to humanity. The use of "word of God" in the OT is not exclusively for written scriptures.

    But "word of God" occurs in the New Testament over 40 times. Of course, these Greek words are technically completely different words than the Hebrew words. The NT phrase has two variations: the Greek word logos is translated "word" in English along with "of God" about 37 times, but the Greek word rhema is also translated "word" and is found in direct connection with "of God" about 5 times. None of these verses refer directly to a form of written scripture; taken in historical context, most would be extremely unlikely to be references to written revelation. For example, Acts 4:31 --
    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.​

    Not only does the passage state that they "spake" (not read), but earlier in the chapter Luke tells us that Peter and John would "speak the things which we have seen and heard". These events occur shortly after Christ had ascended, and the apostles themselves had probably not put their witness into writing yet. Clearly, the apostles were spreading the Gospel message and Christian doctrine (see 4:10-12).

    They were giving out the Gospel without benefit of it all being written and in front of them; but they had lived it! I may give more NT examples of "word of God" later, but narratives of speaking and hearing the "word of God" are the typical verbs used (and do not reveal any evidence for written scripture being employed). In the NT also the "word of God" is found coming from the mouths of God's anointed speakers. When the "word of God" is used to mean 'Bible' the term is being used in an abstract way and should not be confused with other forms of past revelation identified by the scriptural idiom.

    Similarly for example, the "day of the Lord" is also a specific prophetic idiom in scripture which should not be used to correspond to Sunday, meaning the first day of the week (even though it could be used in that fashion). I am not saying that calling a 'Bible' the 'Word of God" is wrong (although it can compound some misinterpretations), I'm just saying that it is just not the way the term is actually applied by the Holy Spirit. What I know for sure is that the Word of God is found in Heaven.
     
    #3 franklinmonroe, Apr 28, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2008
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Your logic is lacking. According to your assertion, either the terms 'word of God' and 'word of Truth' (your capitalization of the letter 'T') are synonomous or my statement that "the word of truth is the Gospel message" implies that the Gospel message cannot be found in the 'word of God'. That is so false! It is basic logic: where A=B and B=C then A=C. Where 'word of God' is synonomous (equals) 'word of Truth' AND the 'word of truth' is (equals) the Gospel message THEN the 'word of God' must also be (equals) the Gospel message.

    Of course, in the scriptures the terms 'word of God' and the 'word of truth' ARE essentially synonomous (both referring ambiguously to an authentic Christian message of salvation and/or true doctrines [like baptism in the name of Jesus]). Neither biblical term ever explicitly refers to written documents in the scripture itself. When the apostolic writers wanted to refer to the entire Hebrew writings they usually used the term "scriptures", only occassionally "law" or something else. Paul probably makes no reference to other NT books because his writings basically precede all the rest. But it is a historical and contextual misrepresentation to force the identity of written scripture (ie. the 'Bible') upon "word of truth" (in 2 Timothy 2:15 or the other two passages where the phrase is found).
     
  5. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    In typical Salamander fashion, anything you don't agree with or simply do not understand is immediately treated with contempt, even when its clear that the source is a fellow believer and Baptist. I think it is subtle attempt on your part to unjustly discredit opinions you disagree with, especially used when you have no substantial response.

    See Sal's post #2 for another example of the lack of Christian charity.
     
    #5 franklinmonroe, Apr 28, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2008
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sal has just insulted the intelligence of every regular member of the BB. That you mentioned it IS your effort to rehash (not that you actually "established" any such thing). I'd be glad to explain to any rational person how diligence is not neccessarily a requirement for study to be effective ("effective" being a subjective term).
     
  7. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see that my request to steer away from that already proven fact that study of any kind requires diligence cannot be avoided by your demanding to go in that direction.

    If I "study" what you offer, I conclude nothing but convolutions of the truth. You've twisted my words repeatedly and misrepresented what Ed Sutton had to say by showing his words as if you were quoting me.

    I never said it was the Gospel message that was separated from the word of God, but rather I said that what Ed offered indicated that only the word of truth is the Gospel message and the word of God was something different.

    As for youre conjecture that I insulted the intelligence of every "regular" BB member, it seems you've concocted a faction or sect here and in turn exclude those you deem as "irregular". Now I suppose for you to escape the guilt you've placed upon yourself, you must now provide a list of the "regular" members you claim I insulted.

    Study without diligence isn't study at all, but simply a glossing over of material hoping something sticks in the process.

    You demand a liberal and modernistic understanding that doesn't quite exist beyond the scope of your imagination.

    When I study the word of God I know I could be led to think things that might not be according to the word of Truth, so by using diligence I avoid taking things contrary to established doctrine by the context and harmony associated throughout the Scripture/word of God/word of Truth.

    Maybe you don't, I really don't know if you do and really don't care.

    I've asked you before to stop speaking to me in the third person. I see no one conversing with you in return to what you've said. This practice is not new and it is understood to be insulting to the person of whom you're speaking. Simply put,it is GOSSIP.

    I defend the simple and the unsuspecting. You attack those who defend them.

    Now surmise Christian charity in the light of what I have just exposed to be the darkness within your attempts to discredit my person.

    The word of God may be separated by you in this fashion, but I find it is still the word of God in what you offer as proof that it is anything different. You really appear to be confused by your own logic. That is truly sad.

    I find the Gospel message throughout the word of God known as the 66 Books of the Canon/ The Bible. Thus I find the word of Truth to also be the word of God containing the Gospel Message. :godisgood:

    For some very strange reason, some find something different!:eek:
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    You're confused; and Ed Sutton has made no posts in this topic.
     
  9. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excuse my goof, but even worse, you quoted yourself with my name attached as if what you said is what I said.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    BTW, nice use of the edit button.
     
  10. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have only quoted (in 'Quote:' boxes) your posts in this thread. I have NOT quoted myself in this topic; unless you consider the partial statement "the word of truth is the Gospel message" a quote. It was central to the question you raised (which was introduced within your OP, and you refer to it as "... or the last statement implies..."). If you want me to address something you'll have to be more specific.
    Again, I think you're just confused.
     
    #10 franklinmonroe, Apr 30, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...