Is the Bible properly described as "The Word of God"?

Speculation is not the right word. Ministers who take their task seriously earnestly study the historical, grammatical, and theological context of the Scriptures. They're not just taking a stab at it to see what they can come up with that sounds plausable. As you study the Word, you take all of those particulars into consideration as to try to maintain the intergrity of the authors original intent.

Blessings,

 

yeah but we're discussing a culture that has been dead two thousand years ago. not to mention Moses thousands of years before that. The best historians believed that Troy never existed until it was found in the 1800.

 

I'm not sure I'm following you. There are obviously cultural differences between 1st century Palestine and say... modern Detriot, Mi for example. Therefore it is the job of the person handling the Word to set it in it's proper context, as far as we're able, and then to make application to the listener today.

Blessings,

 

I'm basically saying that a culture thats 2,000 + years old cannot be fully known or context of speach implied entirely correct by people today. We can guess at a lot but theres always something that we miss. Thats all. Nothing more nothing less. And though I do believe pastors do a lot to gather the correct information (in as far as they can) they are still limited and thus it still sounds like speculation. Is there some mechanism to ensure that the churches understands correctly the apporpiate teachings of the scripture with in the context of their day?

 

"Is there some mechanism to ensure that the churches understands correctly the apporpiate teachings of the scripture with in the context of their day?"

~ Sure, I understand now. We certainly don't say that preachers preach infallably (unless you're the pope in the RCC- they beleive he can, at times, speak infallably). Ministers are capable, and do err. No question there. So, we try to draw on as many resources as possible to ensure as much adherence to truth as we can. This is why the pubic preaching of the Word is so seriously important. One great resource we have is called historical consensus. If we can find where the church as generally agreed on a matter down through history, that goes a long way in helping ensure we're not teaching anything abberant or completely new to NT doctrine. Along those same lines, you'll find where the church has most definitely disagreed on many matters, but even in those cases it is still benefical to see how certain controveries and the like have been handled historically.

I hope this helps.

 

I think I understand you. However, Historical consensus sounds a lot like tradition that the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim to be their mechanism for appropiate teaching. Whats the difference between historical consensus and tradition?

 

Jesus is not the word of God the way the bible is the word of God.

If the Bible only contains words of God, then it does not have the authority as the word of God.

Not every word in the Bible is God speaking but the Bible is the Word of God because every word in it is there because God wanted it there and put it there through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on what the writers wrote.

 

I respectfully disagree. let me add : I worship Jesus Christ...not The Bible.

 

Marcia I like your post but that was kind of confusing. Can you break it down elementary for me? Thanks.

 

We can't apply what the Bible says until we know what it means. To do that, we have to understand the original context. This is how I've been taught to understand and study and the Bible.

 

Are you implying I worship the Bible? But God's words are of grave importance. God Himself claims this:

God's word judges us; we do not judge God's word.

Either the Bible is God's word or it is not. If it is not, what do you stand on to determine truth? How do you determine false teachings? How do you know what Jesus said?

 

I copied it here because I couldn't remember what I said! :laugh:

The Bible is one book linked by common themes, with many prophecies in the OT being fulfilled in the NT. There are words in the Bible from various people, from Satan, and from God. But as a whole, it is all the Word of God because all of it is there under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Not sure I am explaining it well.

The words of the apostles are called "the word of God" in several places in the NT. This was all written down for us. So as a whole book, the Bible is the word of God.

 

I have not read the whole article posted in the OP but I disagree that "God does not speak any language."

First of all, I would like to ask the person who wrote that, "How do you know?"

Then I would point out that language itself comes from God. We are wired for language. Adam and Eve spoke right after being made. God gave them language.

Language is one of the ways we are made in the image of God.

 

From the article posted in the OP:

Self-refuting statement. This statement itself is logical, so how can we accept its truth?

I just love it when people say something is not a matter of logic and use logic to say it! :laugh:

 

"Whats the difference between historical consensus and tradition?"

Many traditions, such as those in the RCC are binding. In other words, you are committed to teaching the same doctrines as the Church - you have no liberty to interpret the Scriptures for yourself. What I'm speaking of includes considering what others had said about a particular matter, but then being left with the liberty to make a final interpretation on your own. In the Protestant view, every Christian has the right and the responsibility to read and interpret Scripture for themselves. This doesn't mean we should neglect others views, opinons, research, study, preaching and teaching - but - it does mean none of man's interpretations are morally binding the way the Word itself is.

I hope this helps.

 

Quote:

These things are not a matter of logic, and one cannot be forced to accept them.

HP: I fail to follow your logic. How is the statement you are commenting on self-refuting? If something is not a matter of logic, what would force the mind to accept it? For instance, if one states a house is green (which is not necessarily logical in and of itself but rather varies according to anothers perception or idea of what constitutes green,) and yet I, from my perspective, see it as more blue than green, is it not true that due to the fact that the hue of color I see is not based on logic, my mind is not forced to accept the house as being green in color?

 

Why the tiny print? It is impossible for me to read. Now that isn't logical at all.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, show us a post with type that is the smallest that you can read well. My suggestion is to make that size or something close to it the default print size if that is possible.

 

Well, I read the tope line about 3 inches from the screen with magnifying lenses on........

This type I can read just fine. It just seems that lately some are posting lengthy items in tiny print and I am lost, It just goes blurry after a sentence or two.

Cheers,

Jim