5 Things I Wish Christians Would Admit About the Bible Read more at http://www.relev

Of course the article is correct but you won't get a lot of positive feedback on this forum.

 

1. The Bible Isn’t a Magic Book: Never seen anyone here say it was magic or deny it was made up of 66 books. Of course the statement is true.

2.The Bible Isn't as Clear as We'd Like It To Be: This is a yes and no. God isn't the author of confusion. It is us who cannot understand. We bring our own since of "who God is", personal doctrines, and perspectives to reading scripture. It is us that makes it unclear. Our thought are not His thoughts, our ways are not His ways.

3. The Bible Was Inspired by God, Not Dictated by God: Never seen anyone disagree with this statement on this site. I have some say only the KJV is inspired, but not claiming any book(s) to be dictated.

4. We All*Pick and Choose the Bible We Believe, Preach and Defend: Obviously, we have numerous interpretations of numerous verses. We always will. God's infinite being is to vast for our finite minds. We try to grasp Him and his plan of redemption as best we can.

5. God is bigger than the Bible: I have never meet anyone who doesn't believe that.

 

Due to the nature of the op it has no true place in legitimate theological debates. The reason for this is that it is full of misrepresentations of people the author disagrees with. Taking this dishonesty further the one who posted the op has for a second time in recent days assigned fear as a motivation for not agreeing with them. This misrepresentations and the assigning of motives not proven only work to show the weakness of their arguments.

The use of this inflammatory word "magic" is a prime example of my statement. Such disagreements over what the nature of differing parts of scripture can be discussed without the use of hyper-inflammatory rhetoric. No one sees the Bible as a "magic" book and it is actually disrespectful to God and scripture to make such sweeping accusations. The difficult part of the op is no specifics were given just attacks on those with whom the author disagrees with.

The Bible itself says that the word of God is "quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. "

The mere words of men will all pass and be forgotten. However, the Bible says "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

The word of God keeps us from sin "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."

The word of God created all that exists and in this we see the power of God's word "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."

And of course the op, in its entirety, ignores the role of the Holy Ghost in understanding scripture and presents that endeavor as purely humanistic. However scripture (God) tells us that "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me".

What has been a purely humanistic endeavor is the writing of the op

The only appropriate response to this is "hath God said?"

With this point the author either fails to understand or rejects what biblical inspiration means. Inspiration is not some passive action on God's part. God can and does use the personality of men all the while saying exactly what he intended to say to man. Whether or not scripture is dictated is not in question. What is in question is just what does inspiration mean and how was it accomplished. Any position less that God's word says exactly what God wanted to say is heresy and should be soundly condemned.

It is unclear that we all do this but it is clear from the op that the author does in this article.

The words of scripture are from God, are intended to show who God is and are infallible. The author gets it completely wrong when he says "The Bible is a library filled with inspired words about God." Wrong it is filled with God's intended revelation to his special creation so that man can be intimate with Him.


The tone of the entire op is that he compartmentalizes the Bible and God not giving room for any real relationship between the two. He says the Bible is about God but refuses to acknowledge or at least understand that what God says is in fact not just about Him but from Him and reveals who He is with much clarity. The Bible itself makes a very close connection between God and His word when it says "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Proverbs 30:5) Here there is a clear connection between Him and His word without any sense of compartmentalization.

Scripture does this again when God tells us "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." (Psalm 18:30) Once again the relationship to God and His word is clear and without dissimulation. Understanding this in no way means anyone is worshiping the Bible rather than God. This further inflammatory language on further weakens his argument. The op is sad, partly heresy, and sophomoric at best.

 

McCree, Revmitchell, and Scarlett O have made excellent responses. I'll only add that while "God is bigger than the Bible" is true it is frequently used by people to allow all sorts of things--traditions, dreams, so-called miracles, etc.--to be their personal special revelations.

 

the Bible is God's divine revelation of his character to us, and God never contradicts his character, therefore he never contradicts his word, so in a sense, no God is not bigger than the bible, the essence of the Bible is God character.

God cannot be separated from his word.

John Chapter 1 tells us that the word was God and that Jesus Christ is the word made flesh.

 

God is bigger than the Bible.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

Yes I know, but the implication of the article is that the scriptures are somehow insufficient or that God works in a way contrary to the scriptures.