The Myth of "The Bible" by Gary Amirault (Can't believe I found this today)

[Webster Fields Jr]

Disclaimer:

This article has the potential to be VERY contorversial... as the author says towards the beginning... but it is a LIMITED representation (but probably put into words better than I could do) of what I have felt God speaking to me in various ways in my life. I totally believe in inspiration by the Holy Spirit using The Bible.. and I believe, aside from Divine Inspiration by GOD HIMSELF, that the Bible is the best source of truth available to us. So I would like to know what you guys think of this article.

If you choose to read the article please do so completely... the stated reason for the author writing and making the points he is are VERY important to consider. If nothing else... it's good to know what people are saying out there so that even if you don't agree with it... you know what we are "up against".

The Myth of “The Bible”
Gary Amirault

If I had a dollar for every time I read or heard “the word of God says,” I probably could retire by now. Of course, whenever they referred to the phrase “The word of God,” they meant “the Bible.” In this short article, I’m going to try to kill two birds with one stone. Let’s first deal with the phrase “the word of God.”

Before I begin, however, let me make something as clear as I can. I know that many people who will read this article will NOT actually get in their heart what I am putting on paper. Their minds and the traditions they are filled with, will twist these words totally out of recognition. I know this will happen. I can’t do anything about it. To try to help prevent this from happening to some individuals, I want to state something as clearly as I can right at the outset. I believe the Christian Scriptures, the 66 books commonly, but incorrectly called the Bible, are the most valuable writings in the world. They contain the gospel of Jesus Christ. They contain wisdom one will not find in any other book in the world. I have over a hundred versions of those Scriptures in my library. I spend endless hours combing through various translations for my own spiritual benefit and for the benefit of others. Having said that, and having studied the Scriptures, I want to help break a tradition, a habit (a bad one I might add) that will seem almost like heresy at first, but will be most valuable in helping individuals come to the True Word of God, Jesus Christ. Ok, let’s begin.

“And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” (Rev. 19:13, KJV)

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” (Pro. 30:5, KJV)

“And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,” (1 Chron. 17:3)

“But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,” (1 Kings 12:22, KJV)

“And as they were going down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid the servant pass on before us, (and he passed on,) but stand thou still a while, that I may shew thee the word of God.” (1 Sam. 9:27, KJV)

“But the word of God grew and multiplied.” (Acts 12:24, KJV)

“Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" (Matt. 15:6-9, NIV)

Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.” (Acts 13:7, KJV)

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4, KJV) (Note: Most other leading selling Versions, NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc. do not contain the phrase “but by every word of God.” They feel those words were not in the original text but were added in later manuscripts.

“I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.” (1 John 2:12, KJV)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.” (John 1:1-15, KJV)

From all of the above scriptural references, it should be plain to all, that the “word of God,” is not a book consisting of 66 books (most Protestant denominations) or 80 books (Roman Catholic) or even more (Greek and Russian Orthodox). The word of God is the very words of God Himself by His anointing or the anointed One, Jesus the Messiah or Jesus the Anointed One, the One Whose words were full of the Holy Spirit. When He spoke, He spoke the very words of God because everything He spoke was spoken as the very Oracle of the Father.

“Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28, KJV)

A person can speak the very same words Jesus spoke as recorded in the Scriptures and it may NOT be the word of God because it does not have the anointing, the Spirit with it. The true word of God must be spoken WHEN God wants it spoken and under His direction. Anything outside that is NOT the true “word of God.”
Now that we have settled once and for all Who the “word of God is, let’s take a look at another sacred cow of traditionalists which make the true word of God of no effect in their lives – the term, “The Bible.”
What Is “The Bible?”
Actually “The Bible” is a non-existent thing. Unicorns are mentioned in the King James Bible but they don’t really exist. The King James translators thought they existed. And because their knowledge of Hebrew in the seventeenth century was poor, the mistranslated the Hebrew word “reh-ame” (Strong’s number 7214) unicorn when in fact the word described an animal which the English translators were unfamiliar with. The animal, nevertheless, was NOT a single horned creature. Satyrs are mentioned in the “Authorized Version” as well for the very same reason – the translators believed in them. Because they didn’t know exactly what the Hebrew word “sa ir” (Strong’s number 8163) meant, they used a word for an ancient mythological character that never did nor does exist. There has been a LOT of false propaganda in the church world regarding the skill of Bible translators, especially during the reformation period. The following description of a sword wound of the seventeenth century, a cure which King James himself swore by, will reveal for us the level of skill in the academic world of this period of time in England:

"Take of moss growing on the head of a thief who has been hanged and left in the air; of real mummy; of human blood; still warm--of each one ounce; of human suet two ounces; of linseed oil, turpentine, and Armenian bole--of each, two drachms. Mix all well in a mortar, and keep the salve in an oblong, narrow urn." With this salve the weapon, after being dipped in the blood from the wound, was to be carefully anointed, and then laid by a cool place. In the meantime, the wound was to be duly washed with fair clean water, covered with a clean, soft, linen rag, and opened once a day to cleanse of purulent of other matter. (Ref: "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay, L.L.D Vol. 1 Second Edition, 1852, page 307)

So much for the level of medicine, science and ancient languages in King James' England. The foremost Hebrew scholar in England during this period of time, Hugh Broughton said “he would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people.” Perhaps those are only the words of a jealous theologian. Then again, perhaps they are the accurate words of one who should have known.

Nevertheless, “the Bible,” the way the term is used among Christians is as non-existent as the unicorn was to King James and his scholars. They believed in them even though they never saw one. So too, “THE Bible.” When one says, “the Bible says,” what they are REALLY saying is, “My translation of certain Greek and Hebrew texts says…” You see, the King James Version of “the Bible” contains the phrase “the word of God” in Luke 4:4 while the NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc do not. Why? Well, the translators of the King James Version used a Greek text that was different from the Greek text used by the translators of those other translations.

Most Christians are unaware of the fact that of the 6,000 or so Greek manuscripts we have of the Greek New Testament hardly a single one agrees with another. Each have slight differences. Some have major differences. When someone or a committee decide to embark upon making a translation of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which they believe are the sacred scriptures of the Christian faith, they must first decide on which manuscripts to use. This is a very difficult process of which few Christians are aware. The translator must make many decisions regarding how much weight should be given to various things like the new information gained from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the differences between the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew text, which family of Greek texts to follow, new information about the manners and customs of the Biblical period gained from various sciences like archaeology, copies of versions in other ancient languages, the writings of the early church fathers, etc. But setting all this aside, after a person or team brings forth a translation of whatever Hebrew and Greek texts they select as the best and most accurate, all they will have for their efforts when complete is another version of certain Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They will NOT have created or invented “The Bible.” They will have created their version, their translation, their interpretation of a select group of manuscripts. They will have had copies of copies of copies of copies of the original autographs. None of the original autographs exist. (For your information, an “autograph” is the original work. A manuscript is a hand-written copy written prior to the printing press. Most of the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament are of late date, that is, after 1,000 A.D.)

A little history of how the term “the Bible” came into being might be of interest to the reader. From Smith’s Bible Dictionary we find:

“The Bible, i.e. ‘the Book, from the Greek ‘ta biblia,’ the books. The word is derived from the root designating the inner bark of the linden tree, on which the ancients wrote their books. It is THE book as being superior to all other books. But the application of the word BIBLE to the collected books of the Old and New Testaments is not to be traced farther back then the fifth century of our era.”

From the “Science of word histories” on the internet we find:

“The earliest books were actually rolls of papyrus, a writing material that was made from the pith of the papyrus plant and used by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. The Greek word for papyrus was biblos or byblos, which they derived from the name of the Phoenician city byblos [now Jubayl, Lebanon] from which is derived the word bible.”

Seems Dr. William Smith was a bit off regarding the “linden tree.” This is not surprising considering that Biblical scholarship in the nineteenth century was not as up to snuff as we are taught in Sunday School. It was not until the late nineteenth century that A. Deissmann’s discovery of letters, bills and receipts in Egypt written in koine Greek in the first century demonstrated that koine was the language of the common people and not some special or formal or divine language reserved only for “God’s word” as many theologians and bible scholars up to that time thought and taught.

The term “the Bible,” then is a misnomer. Correctly, when one wants to quote their favorite version of scriptures sacred to Christianity, they should say, “The New International Version of the Christian Scriptures,” or “The King James Version of the Christian Scriptures.” And remember some sects of Christianity have more books they consider sacred than others.

Why am I writing about this? Am I just playing with semantics? Am I just stirring up trouble for the sake of making dust? Not at all! I think it is VITAL we begin to clean up our speaking AND our thinking!

Jesus said, quoting the New King James Version:
“You search the Scriptures, for in them you THINK you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39, NKJV)

Friends, there are multitudes of Christians and pastors who say, “The Bible says,” or “The word of God says,” and they have never met Him or know Him. The true “word of God” MUST have the Holy Spirit upon it for it to truly be the “word of God.”

“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever – the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” (John 14:16-18, NKJV)
“…when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.” (John 16:13, NKJV)
“These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. (1 John 2:26, 27, NKJV)

The true word of God comes via Jesus’ Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the Anointing. Jesus is the “Christ,” that is, the Anointed One -- the One with the fullness of God’s Spirit. The true word of God is anointed with God’s Spirit. The Spirit and Truth bear witness to each other.

We should always remember that is it NOT those who have their favorite translation memorized who are the sons of God, but those who are led by His Spirit.
“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” (Rom. 8:14, NKJV)

I say all this to say that Satan is perfectly able and more than willing to quote scriptures. And most of the time he’ll quote them through another Christian, perhaps even your own church leader. He used them to try to trip up Jesus during His tribulation period. Memorizing verses from your favorite translation is NOT putting the true word of God inside you. Quoting one’s favorite wrath-filled verse against someone you don’t like is NOT obeying God unless He clearly directs you to do so via the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit!

So the next time, because of habit, you want to say, “the word of God says, or “the Bible says,” bite your tongue til it hurts. The odds are very great that God never wanted to say a word of it in the first place!

[Todd Erickson]

This has already been done in multiple threads in the past half year post crash on the main religion threadspace. To death.

[Webster Fields Jr]

Not sure what you meant by that other than it's been discussed to death... but I'm new... haven't seen it

[Todd Erickson]

Not sure what you meant by that other than it's been discussed to death... but I'm new... haven't seen it

There are search functions on the site. I would suggest using them. Then you can see what has already been discussed, and see if you have anything to add to it, or new questions to ask.

This is generally considered etiquette on the internet. When new to a community, look into the conversations of that community to see whether they have already had the conversations that you want to have before you try to start them.

[Webster Fields Jr]

hmmmm.... I sense hostility

[Webster Fields Jr]

If you could link the other posts on the forums here I would appreciate it... I don't see anything that discusses this .... I'm newbish.

[Todd Erickson]

hmmmm.... I sense hostility

I suppose that if you wish to sense it, you can, but I'm not sure how that's going to get you anywhere.

I've been part of various internet communities since 1994. In all of them, one of the founding ideas was "there's a lot of information here. Please read some of that information to get a feel for what the other inhabitants have been talking about before you start new conversations, so that we can avoid repeating some of the old ones".

If, for instance, you head read the header thread within this "room" you would have noted that this thread you're trying to start actually belongs in the other standard theology thread. I state this as fact, not in condemnation of your method. Many conversations on this topic and others have occurred. I would plead with you to attempt to read some of them, to see what else has been said, to see how this coincides with what you are thinking, before attempting to take over other areas and threads proceeding from a lack of understanding of the community.

Thank you.

[Shea Zellweger]

hmmmm.... I sense hostility

Todd's not being hostile. There are certain conversations that have been had... shall we say several times?... and those of us who are "naznet veterans" (I wonder if I count as one after 3 years) recognize some patterns and try to avoid them. The meaning of the term "word of God" has been talked out a LOT- including 3 times in the last 6 months that I recall.

Summary points on this conversation:
Some people here believe that "Bible" and "word of God" are synonymous.
Some believe that they are not.
Some believe that "word of God," particularly as it is used in the Johannine writings and in Hebrews, is best understood as being a reference to Jesus, while "word of the Lord" in the Hebrew Scriptures generally refers to a prophetic message.

I don't know of anyone on this site who would disagree with the idea that "word of God" refers to the messages that God gives to God's people. The question is whether the Bible as a whole is comprised of such messages, and again I think most would say "yes." Amirault really fails to acknowledge that those who take a high view of Scriptural inspiration believe that every bit of Scripture is in fact a message from the Lord, and therefore the "word of the Lord," and he certainly should not have used the word "Bible" in his title, since all Bible means is "book," and the Bible is most certainly that.

However, it is still worth noting that we should be careful using the term "word of God," and not confusing the messages from the Lord in Scripture with the Word of God, found in the person of Jesus Christ.

there, I think I've pretty well summarized how this discussion will go... albeit with my own opinions getting a bit of favoritism in my presentation .

[Todd Erickson]

Threads that come up when searching under "word of God" (the search function is on the upper right hand corner of the page, and operates much like google, but internally) :http://www.naznet.com/community/sear...earchid=340008

[Webster Fields Jr]

Ok... if we were to not discuss things that have been discussed before (by others) then this forum would be quite dead.... kinda like alot of Churches out there that just listen to the preacher maybe 3 times a week and move on with their "real lives".

If you've seen the topic before and are exhausted with it... then don't participate. I'm trying to be active in a community that has probably discussed some version of everything that I am dealing with now... it would be impossible for me to spend the time required to snoop out every aspect of topics that I need to discuss and gain wisdom concerning.

Even if I did have the time, know-how, and will to do so.... this Forum would actually turn over to be a repository of information (or opinions) and not an active community... that would be sad... imho.

Furthermore, I thought the concept that the bible isn't perfect and absolute truth in every possible aspect would be Non-Traditional... afaik... Traditional churches just go with whatever the preacher says the "word of God" says and doesn't think past that.

[Todd Erickson]

*sigh*

Let's try this again. I realize that you are going to take some things very literally, and so we have to be careful how we approach this.

There is this idea, perhaps, that various communities will have ongoing conversations that are already occurring? Yes?

So. We're already talking. About a lot of things.

For you to come to these conversations, and treat them as if they had not already occurred, and refusing to read what has already been said before you contribute, is disrespectful. It tells people that what they have already said, what is already happening, is meaningless to you, because you're more interested in this current experience that you're having than in what is already being said by the people who have been here for a while.

Whereas, if you were to read what has already been said, you could get some of your questions answered. You could enter into the current conversations up to date, and knowing what has already been said repeatedly and what does not, in fact, need to be said/asked again, because it has so many times already. You could, in fact, figure out where to go from there.

You could also, in response to what you read in those threads, send people PM's individually and ask them about the questions that you see in their previous posts/threads, which would also help you to engage with the community.

Our concern is less than you shouldn't start new threads, but rather that most people will not, in fact, participate, because they're tired of the conversation, and then you in turn will feel ostracized or rejected because people aren't interacting with you, and then you'll leave.

We are encouraging you, instead, to follow the conversation so far, and then join in when you have caught up.

Which is what most churches will ask new members to do.

[Shea Zellweger]

Furthermore, I thought the concept that the bible isn't perfect and absolute truth in every possible aspect would be Non-Traditional... afaik... Traditional churches just go with whatever the preacher says the "word of God" says and doesn't think past that.

The Post-Traditional Theology room is intended for discussions that have moved past some of these "classic controversies." The nature of inspiration, the nature of the atonement, and relying on what people have been saying for the last 2000 years is all in the purview of the "regular" theology room.

As for the rest of your post- I think Todd has pretty well addressed it. If/when someone points you to a previous conversation, they are in fact trying to help you out and answer your questions. It might have helped if Todd had provided a link when he first mentioned it... but he did offer one a couple of posts later.

[Webster Fields Jr]

TY, both. I have been watching the "New Posts" threads for a few days... but that's not much time

It's rough having to go through the 101 posts that comes up when you search "word of god" on the site...

I hope this kinda experience isn't what it's like being a new christian coming into a Church... but I bet it is.... gotta learn who's in what cliche and stuff lol.

Sorry, I'm new to real relationships... I have been to hermit-ish in my life. Kinda feel like I'm going backwards in this area even...

[Todd Erickson]

It's sort of like if you moved to a new neighborhood, and you were offering to drive a group of new friends to the pizza joint, and you insisted on going this particular route.

The other folks have all been living here for a while. They know the back roads. They know that this particular route, post service, will take an extra 20 minutes, and they're starving. They encourage you to learn the back roads, tell you some short cuts, encourage you to drive the area at different times so that you get a feel.

That way, nobody gets shorted on the pizza.

[Webster Fields Jr]

ok, I'm done. Ty for the help ...

[Dennis M. Scott]

People come in at their own time and rate. We're glad they come in! When someone else has participated in a similar discussion earlier, they tend to dismiss its reappearance. There are some who want to encourage and engage with nearly everyone. Rather than ignore the thread, they (we) sometimes express a little anxt. Not to worry, it's a pretty common occurrence, but one of the things we really wanted to say is, "Welcome!"

There's a wealth of conversation and topics around naznet. Glad you're a part of it.

[Webster Fields Jr]

Refreshing... ty!

[Shea Zellweger]

I hope this kinda experience isn't what it's like being a new christian coming into a Church... but I bet it is.... gotta learn who's in what cliche and stuff lol.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. It must be that my words (or Todd's words) as I see them being expressed are not reaching your eyes the same way. I think Todd captured the spirit of our posts by saying

"Our concern is less that you shouldn't start new threads, but rather that most people will not, in fact, participate, because they're tired of the conversation, and then you in turn will feel ostracized or rejected because people aren't interacting with you, and then you'll leave.

We are encouraging you, instead, to follow the conversation so far, and then join in when you have caught up."

Encouraging someone to participate, and being concerned for their sense of inclusion, while still being careful not to stir up old battles, seems like a great thing to do for someone new to church. I'm guessing you would agree, which leads me to believe that you're understanding us differently than we are understanding ourselves. I only wish I knew how to bridge that gap.

[Webster Fields Jr]

No problem. I assume ya'll's intentions are good. Just on the outside looking in... so there's a learning curve like with joining a new church, etc. Not impossible to overcome or entirely neccessary... but it's still there... not something we should worry about too much, I guess.

[Benjamin Burch]

No problem. I assume ya'll's intentions are good. Just on the outside looking in... so there's a learning curve like with joining a new church, etc. Not impossible to overcome or entirely neccessary... but it's still there... not something we should worry about too much, I guess.

I think Shea hit it on the head. Most of these topics have lead to a lot of fights, and we're comfortable leaving them alone. Seeing as how the conversation has been had 100x, and always led to angry people, we would prefer that you read what we've said already, instead of saying it again and fighting more.

That being said, we should try to provide you with the right threads to read. I will take some time later tonight or tomorrow when I have it to send you some good links. It is not right of us to leave you on your own to look around. This is clearly a topic you think is worth discussing, and we should treat it that way with you. However, we hope you understand that from our end, the "discussion" is best as "already had", and therefore we should share taht with you.

I will try to do that over the next 24 hours, and hopefully some others will be able to help me with that.

[Webster Fields Jr]

I think Shea hit it on the head. Most of these topics have lead to a lot of fights, and we're comfortable leaving them alone. Seeing as how the conversation has been had 100x, and always led to angry people, we would prefer that you read what we've said already, instead of saying it again and fighting more.

That being said, we should try to provide you with the right threads to read. I will take some time later tonight or tomorrow when I have it to send you some good links. It is not right of us to leave you on your own to look around. This is clearly a topic you think is worth discussing, and we should treat it that way with you. However, we hope you understand that from our end, the "discussion" is best as "already had", and therefore we should share taht with you.

I will try to do that over the next 24 hours, and hopefully some others will be able to help me with that.

Much Respect to you Brother... I like your style and would appreciate it the links . But would I get criticized for Resurrecting the thread? lol

Todd said that some subjects that have been discussed in detail are:

"Topics that have been (and likely will continue to be) beaten to death:

Homosexuality
Abortion
Inerrancy/Literalism
Literal Creation
Literal Flood
The End Times
Infant Baptism
Communion
Judaizers
etc."

Could we suggest to the Forum Admins to make Main Categories where we can find all the discussions of these topics and move them there? So that we don't have to search for them? If there are really excessive amount of discussion of the topics, perhaps we all would benefit from having them in one spot?

What you think?

[Benjamin Burch]

Much Respect to you Brother... I like your style and would appreciate it the links . But would I get criticized for Resurrecting the thread? lol

Todd said that some subjects that have been discussed in detail are:

"Topics that have been (and likely will continue to be) beaten to death:

Homosexuality
Abortion
Inerrancy/Literalism
Literal Creation
Literal Flood
The End Times
Infant Baptism
Communion
Judaizers
etc."

Could we suggest to the Forum Admins to make Main Categories where we can find all the discussions of these topics and move them there? So that we don't have to search for them? If there are really excessive amount of discussion of the topics, perhaps we all would benefit from having them in one spot?

What you think?

I used to be a host of the Theology Forum. You might send a PM to David Graham and Mike Shultz, see if they wouldn't mind doing some searching and sticky the discussions. If I can do the searching and finding tomorrow (won't happen tonight), maybe they could just sticky some of them.

As far as resurrecting threads go, you're more than welcome to pull out defribulators on any thread which has not yet been declared dead (aka, not closed by moderators). Just don't be offended when the majority choose not to let the heart start beating again. If they do, more power to you.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I used to be a host of the Theology Forum. You might send a PM to David Graham and Mike Shultz, see if they wouldn't mind doing some searching and sticky the discussions. If I can do the searching and finding tomorrow (won't happen tonight), maybe they could just sticky some of them.

As far as resurrecting threads go, you're more than welcome to pull out defribulators on any thread which has not yet been declared dead (aka, not closed by moderators). Just don't be offended when the majority choose not to let the heart start beating again. If they do, more power to you.

Or we can go into round googol of repeating ourselves.

[Steven Martinez]

Webster,
Welcome to NazNet and I hope to continue to participate in this online community. The only advice I have to offer is that is sometimes difficult to read long threads on this type of forum and it is often better to make a direct link to the article instead of posting the entire article. It is also a violation of copyright laws to post the entire article unless you have permission to do so by the author.

[Hans Deventer]

Webster, welcome to NazNet! I'm usually responding a little faster but I'm in Australia on vacation at the moment.

Steve already dealt with the copyright issue.

As to posting about "old" topics, that will to some extent be inevitable. No new NazNetter will be able to get a complete view of all that has been discussed, that's pretty much impossible. So it is likely that "old" topics will be reintroduced. Longtime NazNetters will have to accept that. But likewise, new NazNetters will have to accept that some topics will, for that reason, not receive many reactions or perhaps none at all.

If those points are understood by all, I don't see much of problem.

[Webster Fields Jr]

Webster,
Welcome to NazNet and I hope to continue to participate in this online community. The only advice I have to offer is that is sometimes difficult to read long threads on this type of forum and it is often better to make a direct link to the article instead of posting the entire article. It is also a violation of copyright laws to post the entire article unless you have permission to do so by the author.

OOps, I thought if you gave the source (author's name and the title of the article) that it was ok... but I can see why that would be wrong. It was sent to me in an email from a free mailing list thing... but still.. I see how it could be wrong.. and appreciate all of ya'll's advice and information . Ty.

[Billy Cox]

Webster, welcome to NazNet! I'm usually responding a little faster but I'm in Australia on vacation at the moment.

Steve already dealt with the copyright issue.

As to posting about "old" topics, that will to some extent be inevitable. No new NazNetter will be able to get a complete view of all that has been discussed, that's pretty much impossible. So it is likely that "old" topics will be reintroduced. Longtime NazNetters will have to accept that. But likewise, new NazNetters will have to accept that some topics will, for that reason, not receive many reactions or perhaps none at all.

If those points are understood by all, I don't see much of problem.

I think that we should dismiss this idea that any given topic is 'closed for further discussion'. NazNet is not an encyclopedia of settled subjects, but is a place of ongoing dialogue.

I personally try to be generous to newcomers who want to discuss perennial questions. To do otherwise implies that newcomers don't bring any additional value to the discussion, and I reject that notion until proven otherwise.

[Todd Erickson]

I'm not particular in favor of closing discussion either. Protecting people's ability to have conversations and ask questions is of definite value to the church, even though we tend to have difficulty practicing it around here.

[Marcus Kibbe]

hmmmm.... I sense hostility

Webster... warm, hearty, hospitable welcomes are frequently mistaken for hostility around here. It's really weird.

[Dennis Bratcher]

The article is interesting but does not plow any new ground.

Consider these:

The Word of God and God's word

Demons in the Old Testament

An Introduction to Text Criticism

There are several other relevant articles under the topics Issues and Methods in Interpreting Scripture and Scripture in the Church: Contemporary Issues of Biblical Interpretation and Theology.

A few brief observations about the article.

1) The phrase “word of God” has a range of meaning within biblical usage. To declare that it refers only to the spoken word of God or Jesus, or that we can receive that spoken word through the Holy Spirit as absolute truth, seriously misunderstands the biblical usage of the phrase.

2) To claim that there is no Bible because it is culturally conditioned from a context 2,000 years ago, or that translators were themselves culturally and historically conditioned, is a tad ludicrous. That perspective comes from a rather complete lack of knowledge about how language and translation works. Meaning within a language is not located in the words used, but in the communication, the ideas and concepts that are being expressed in certain language symbols. To accept his premise, any translation is meaningless.

3) There is a great deal of modern hubris and ethnocentrism in the article in assuming that we today are so much smarter than were ancient people that our pronouncements of what is true are more accurate than theirs. After all they believed in unicorns! And we have spacetime singularities.

4) The article is heavily agenda driven. Its conclusion is to promote the idea that what people proclaim as a “word of God” is superior to any interpretation of the Bible, since their own “word of God” is “led by the Spirit.” Of course, that also assumes that any biblical interpretation is not.

5) While not directly stated in the article, I think I can safely assume (from experience!) that those who follow this perspective end up doing exactly what the author rejects at the beginning. My experience has been that whenever anyone who has a “word of God” and who claims to be “led by the Spirit” in this fashion, and that word contradicts anyone else who likewise claims to have a word of God, or a different perspective based in biblical interpretation, then personal preference and opinion will quickly decide the nature of “truth.” (I once had a student who objected to having to take a required Freshman Bible course at a Christian University, taking the position that she did not need the Bible because if God wanted her to know something, He would tell her.)

In other words, this perspective is far less reliable than trying honestly to interpret Scripture. It is too easily subsumed under personal opinion, yet claiming that such opinion is only what God said. The bottom line practically is that whatever one thinks becomes the truth of God. In effect, it is another version of “the word of God says.” At least biblical interpretation is practiced within a community of Faith, past and present, whether or not one chooses to listen to it.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Roland Hearn]

Welcome Webster, thanks for diving in and pushing through what appeared to me to be a pretty harsh initial reaction to your post. Todd I think you probably should have tried to see this whole thing from Webster's perspective before dismissing him so quickly in your first response. Yes this is an oft spoken of subject but I didn't get from the original post anything other than a genuine attempt to debate some issue of importance. There are different types of personalities that come to this forum and we need to respect them all. For some people wading through old posts and making certain that what they were about to say fitted protocol and crossed all the "i's" and dotted all the "t's" is pure joy - for others, like myself, jumping right in were other fools are fearing to treed just goes with the territory. I think we should be a little gracious in our responses. You may have meant nothing harsh at all but I was a little taken aback by the response and if I was then I'm sure Webster could have been too, even if such a reaction would be a misunderstanding.

Webster, the upshot is you are probably going to feel a kindred spirit with most on this board if you resinate with this article. I think the article in its ultimate goal, short comings aside, is in keeping with the stated position of the Church of the Nazarene on the subject even if not held by all Nazarenes.

[Webster Fields Jr]

TY Dennis, Billy, and Roland... you guys are really helping me feel welcome . Todd I understand, he's like my twin in so many ways, lol... I see parts of me (from the past and currently) in him and thank God that He has been working in me, on many levels, to feel a kinship with a variety of people. It's great to be in this enviroment (Naznet) where we can disagree and still see God in each other . And thank God that it doesn't matter so much what we think or understand... but what we believe in our hearts. As long as we focus on that... the rest will work out fine ;D. God IS faithful.

[Pete Vecchi]

As is often the case, I'm getting to a thread late. I thank Webster for bringing it up. As to the idea of "To start a new thread, or not to start a new thread; that is the question..." all I can say is that I'm probably one of the most "veteran" NazNetters to post to this thread, at least in terms of years having been on NazNet. It seems to me that I found out about NazNet around 14-15 years ago when I was still in Bible College classes, when my only access to the internet was through the public library and text-only screens. That in no way makes me a "better" NazNetter than anyone else, but I just want to make a point that I've seen a lot on here throughout the years.

I have sometimes been away from NazNet for weeks or even months at a time, for various reasons. Therefore, I am not always "up to speed" on what is being or on what has been discussed. If I have a question, I'm much more apt to simply put it out there and let the discussion begin. There are way too many threads on here from the past--even post crash--that may or may not deal with a specific issue I might want to discuss. If people want to answer my question, or if they choose not to participate, or if they want to point me to another thread, or if they want to begin a discussion anew, this is fine with me.

One thing I've noticed is that if I come into a discussion late, I often don't have time to read all of the posts in a thread. Some posts can get hundreds of responses, and some of the responses have little or nothing to do with the original subject, since threads on the internet can have a tendency to take on lives of their own and go off in tangents that may seem totally unrelated to the original subject by the time the threads are winding down. The subject changing thread happens a lot to me on Facebook. For instance, the other day, I simply posted a "Happy Birthday" message to former President George W. Bush, and while many people "liked" the post, a few people decided that this was their time to start criticizing President Bush's policies and even questioning my knowledge of Jesus and (in the poster's words--kind of apropos for this thread) "the good book."

Personally, I've never heard of the "internet etiquette" mentioned in a previous post in this thread that says that a person is supposed to search through a forum first before posting a question. If that's the etiquette, I don't (and probably won't) follow it.

Now, to the original question about the Bible (or scriptures, or writings, or Word of God), I've often struggled with similar questions. To be honest, I still struggle with a lot of them. But these are what I call "good struggles." That's because I care, and I am seeking the truth. I generally consider it far healthier spiritually to ask honest questions and struggle to find the answers than to simply sit and stagnate spiritually, more or less acting as though I've got it all figured out and don't need to grow any more.

The Bible itself says that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16). At the same time, it seems to me that the Scriptures don't point to themselves as the highest authority, but rather to the "Spirit of Truth" who will guide us into all truth (paraphrasing John 16:13). So it seems that to believe in the authority of the Bible, we should then primarily follow the authority to which the Bible points--the Holy Spirit (who can also then use the words of the Bible to lead us into all truth).

It kind of reminds me of in Ephesians where it says that wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to love their wives the way Christ loves the church. That's not a hierarchy thing between husbands and wives there; it's a circle, because husbands who love their wives will not "lord it over" their wives, but will seek the best for their wives, regardless of circumstance or response (because that's the way Christ loves us).

I don't have an easy answer to the original questions on this thread, but I think that's good, because it means that I'm still struggling to grow.

[Webster Fields Jr]

Now, to the original question about the Bible (or scriptures, or writings, or Word of God), I've often struggled with similar questions. To be honest, I still struggle with a lot of them. But these are what I call "good struggles." That's because I care, and I am seeking the truth. I generally consider it far healthier spiritually to ask honest questions and struggle to find the answers than to simply sit and stagnate spiritually, more or less acting as though I've got it all figured out and don't need to grow any more.

The Bible itself says that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16). At the same time, it seems to me that the Scriptures don't point to themselves as the highest authority, but rather to the "Spirit of Truth" who will guide us into all truth (paraphrasing John 16:13). So it seems that to believe in the authority of the Bible, we should then primarily follow the authority to which the Bible points--the Holy Spirit (who can also then use the words of the Bible to lead us into all truth).

It kind of reminds me of in Ephesians where it says that wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to love their wives the way Christ loves the church. That's not a hierarchy thing between husbands and wives there; it's a circle, because husbands who love their wives will not "lord it over" their wives, but will seek the best for their wives, regardless of circumstance or response (because that's the way Christ loves us).

I don't have an easy answer to the original questions on this thread, but I think that's good, because it means that I'm still struggling to grow.

Amen, and ty

[Steven Burton]

Not sure what you meant by that other than it's been discussed to death... but I'm new... haven't seen it

I feel your pain. Its pretty much trial and error. You will have some who say we have been through this before and then some who have not and would have never actually found this if it wasn't for you posting it.

Also why does he knock KJV then use it quite a lot in the post? Its seem kind of self defeating to me. And I actually stopped reading it when he said the scholar thought such and such and we know better now. How do we know better now. I mean for crying out load we can not even make a stadium that can funnel people in an out as fast as the Colosseum can. So I am not sure where he is actually making his grounds except for the idea of a unicorn. And even then there are people now who would talk about bigfoot and do we say they are not educated or don't know any better. Maybe, but wouldn't. There is mythology now that could be proved wrong in the next 200 years and books and text that 200 years from now would say we where wrong. Where we wrong? Maybe, maybe not. What if 200 years from now they found some manuscript that the others we use today. Would be wrong according to his conclusions.

I do agree though with the idea of using "the word of God" in that way. Or taking it out of its place. But my biggest struggle is what to do about the idea of divinely inspired. How do I understand that meaning does my understand differ than another's and if so why? Also why do we limit ourselves to certain books why just those? Why can I not read the book of Tobit and consider it divinely inspired. Or for that matter C.S. Lewis. Which my wife and I have had long discussion about.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Having been on much the same journey here for 15 years or so now, it’s interesting that so many of the same issues are still “front burner” topics.

Just a couple of observations.

The Bible itself says that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16).

While this is a good verse to catch a glimpse of what the early church was thinking about emerging Scripture at the end of the first century AD, we need to remind ourselves how limited the statement actually is in two major directions. 1) “Scripture” at this juncture was only the Old Testament traditions, and those were not yet fully stable in terms of scope. It is possible that the statement included some NT writings, but we have no way to know which ones; 2) the statement is about the function of “writings” (“Scripture” is a far more specific word in English than is graphā in Greek), not about their authority. That is, writings being “God-breathed” is for the purpose of teaching, etc.. While some might argue that this implies authority, it is a different kind of authority than we moderns associate with the idea of “the authority of Scripture.”

At the same time, it seems to me that the Scriptures don't point to themselves as the highest authority, but rather to the "Spirit of Truth" who will guide us into all truth (paraphrasing John 16:13). So it seems that to believe in the authority of the Bible, we should then primarily follow the authority to which the Bible points--the Holy Spirit (who can also then use the words of the Bible to lead us into all truth).

We need to keep in mind the scope of John’s Gospel, and how John understands the role of the “Spirit.” Within John’s gospel, the “truth” that the Spirit brings is not the “truth” of doctrine, ideas, or data, but an understanding of how to live in the world in response to The Truth, Jesus. The primary role of the Spirit in John is to enable followers to live the teachings of Jesus (Jn 14:26). It is in this sense that even Paul can refer to the Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9, Phil 1:19).

So the “truth” that the Spirit teaches is not really about authority but about living. And John is very clear in both chapters 14 and 16 that such teaching has already been presented in the teachings of Jesus, which are preserved in the writings of Scripture and the Faith traditions of the Church. That does not eliminate the role of the Spirit in ongoing teaching (“inspiration” is not about inspired words but inspired understanding, whether for writers or readers). But neither does it allow for the Spirit to be elevated above Scripture.

It kind of reminds me of in Ephesians where it says that wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to love their wives the way Christ loves the church. That's not a hierarchy thing between husbands and wives there; it's a circle, because husbands who love their wives will not "lord it over" their wives, but will seek the best for their wives, regardless of circumstance or response (because that's the way Christ loves us).

I agree that there is an interactive relationship between Scripture and the Spirit, and that there is no hierarchy. However, humans beings tend to operate in the concrete far better than in the abstract. That is why, both from experience and from the Faith traditions, as well as from John’s perspective, for this particular issue it is the Holy Spirit who helps us understand the testimony as preserved in both Scripture and the Traditions, rather than bringing us new “truth.”

Our human tendency is to equate our own ideas with “spirit led” truth and then attribute them to God. Scripture and inspired understanding of that testimony, while no guarantee of getting it right, seems better. Placing too much emphasis on Spirit revealed truth is a tempting and easy way to drift into egocentric religion.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Having been on much the same journey here for 15 years or so now, it’s interesting that so many of the same issues are still “front burner” topics.

Just a couple of observations.



While this is a good verse to catch a glimpse of what the early church was thinking about emerging Scripture at the end of the first century AD, we need to remind ourselves how limited the statement actually is in two major directions. 1) “Scripture” at this juncture was only the Old Testament traditions, and those were not yet fully stable in terms of scope. It is possible that the statement included some NT writings, but we have no way to know which ones; 2) the statement is about the function of “writings” (“Scripture” is a far more specific word in English than is graphā in Greek), not about their authority. That is, writings being “God-breathed” is for the purpose of teaching, etc.. While some might argue that this implies authority, it is a different kind of authority than we moderns associate with the idea of “the authority of Scripture.”



We need to keep in mind the scope of John’s Gospel, and how John understands the role of the “Spirit.” Within John’s gospel, the “truth” that the Spirit brings is not the “truth” of doctrine, ideas, or data, but an understanding of how to live in the world in response to The Truth, Jesus. The primary role of the Spirit in John is to enable followers to live the teachings of Jesus (Jn 14:26). It is in this sense that even Paul can refer to the Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9, Phil 1:19).

So the “truth” that the Spirit teaches is not really about authority but about living. And John is very clear in both chapters 14 and 16 that such teaching has already been presented in the teachings of Jesus, which are preserved in the writings of Scripture and the Faith traditions of the Church. That does not eliminate the role of the Spirit in ongoing teaching (“inspiration” is not about inspired words but inspired understanding, whether for writers or readers). But neither does it allow for the Spirit to be elevated above Scripture.



I agree that there is an interactive relationship between Scripture and the Spirit, and that there is no hierarchy. However, humans beings tend to operate in the concrete far better than in the abstract. That is why, both from experience and from the Faith traditions, as well as from John’s perspective, for this particular issue it is the Holy Spirit who helps us understand the testimony as preserved in both Scripture and the Traditions, rather than bringing us new “truth.”

Our human tendency is to equate our own ideas with “spirit led” truth and then attribute them to God. Scripture and inspired understanding of that testimony, while no guarantee of getting it right, seems better. Placing too much emphasis on Spirit revealed truth is a tempting and easy way to drift into egocentric religion.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

Thank you thank you thank you. And just in case I wasn't clear Thank you!