What do people mean by, "This is the Word of God?"

[Ben Kenobi]

I suspect that we still call the Bible the "Word of God" because everyone reserves to himself or herself the right to interpret what that claim means.

No, that's not what we mean when we say that it is the Word of God. We mean a couple things by this.

1. Nothing can be added to the Bible. Adding books is wrong, and taints the Word of God.

2. The bible is sufficient, in that it contains all that we need for salvation.

3. The Word of God does not change. Now this does not mean that our perceptions of the text do not change, it simply means that the text itself remains as it was. This is why it is important to get as close to the original as possible.

4. The Word of God is perfect, in the sense that it contains no errors or imperfections with respect to doctrine. Now, this is a bit different from an inerrantist who believes that the Word of God is perfect in all aspects, which I don't go quite as far.

If you want a definition, of what they mean by the Word of God, go ask any Catholic or 'bible Christian', ie, an Evangelical who actually believes in the bible, and not Bishop Spoong, who does not.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by MrFun


His point that Christians have used biblical passages for evil purposes throughout the history of Christianity is one strong point Spong has made.

'

Yeah, because that's something only Spong says. You must search for a LONG time to find someone who disagrees that crimes has been done in the name of Christianity, but that doesn't make Spong's own ideas any better.

[Ben Kenobi]

"I suspect that we still call the Bible the "Word of God" because everyone reserves to himself or herself the right to interpret what that claim means.

Not really. Catholics and Evangelicals disagree on how the Word should be interpreted, not on what the Word of God really means.

Of course, there are always some who believe the Bible should be moulded to suit their interpretation, I would include Spoong as one of the foremost practicioners. It says something to me when even the Episcopalians kicked him out.

When some Christians say of the Bible, "This is the Word of God,"they mean quite literally that they believe this book was written or dictated by God and is therefore inerrant.

Through his disciples, and through all the authors. Yes that means it is inspired, which is the very definition of 'inspired' that God helped them write it, by working through them.

Doesn't mean that some errors have slipped through over time, like the number of talents that it costs for things in the temple, which I believe wasn't an error in the writing but in one of the translations. We are talking about books that are roughly 3 thousand years old.

That is the most popular point of view asserted by America's well-known television evangelists.

No, I was an evangelical and while this issue came up frequently, inspiration was deemed a more accurate teaching.

"Word of God" simply means that God inspired the Bible's human authors. It is still God's word, but some room is created to allow for human error in the sacred text. At least people holding this position give evidence of the fact that they know enough about the biblical text not to want to ascribe it all to God!

Sigh, Spoong has terrible definitions, yes inspiration means that God wrote through the use of men, but that is not the source of the error. I sincerely believe that if we have the originals of all the texts, that they will in fact be inerrant. That's the typical inspired argument, coupled with the fact that we have very early copies of the New Testament. Not so much with the OT, but that will come.

Others, who are still bound, albeit even more loosely, to the traditional claim that the scriptures contain or reveal the "Word of God" suggest that what this phrase really means is that people in every generation continue to hear the "Word of God" through the reading of these ancient and time-bound texts.

The bible is clearly timeless, and should not change to suit the idols of the age. It's explicitly said in the OT and the NT that faith in God is transcendent.

Was this claim for the Bible to be the "Word of God," no matter how it is interpreted, ever appropriate for this volume which contains sixty-six books (or even more if you count the Apocrypha) that were written over a period of perhaps twelve hundred years?

Well Moses wrote the first 5, then the others were written right up until the time of Christ, if you incluede 1 and 2 Macabbees. Then you have all the NT written from 50 AD to 95 AD, a period of 45 years.

It's not right to do as Spoong has done and say that the bible was written over a period of 12 hundred years because that is not how it happened. The Septuagint was the ancient version of the OT, and the first Christian bible did not appear until the Vulgate in 380.

The question for Spoong, is if the actual books were all written by 90 AD by the Apostles, why then the gap?

Can such a claim stand even the barest scrutiny? Is this claim not the primary source from which evil has flowed so freely from the Christian church throughout Christian history?" (pages 16 - 17)

If he wants to tell the Jews that their OT was wrong, then sure. It's the OT that is primarily from antiquity, and even then it is talking about accounts that are much, much older. One gets the sense in 2 books, Genesis, and Job, that substantial Oral tradition existed that goes much further back then when he first compiled the Pentateuch.

"I do not understand how anyone can saddle God with the assumptions that are made by the biblical authors, warped as they are both by their lack of knowledge and by the tribal and sexist prejudices of that ancient time.

So what does Spoong accept from the Bible? Yes, the Bible is written by the Apostles, and yes the Apostles are men, and yes their experiences colour through the Bible. We see Paul give his account of his faith! We see the disciples doubt and fight and backstab one another for position and honour and glory! We see them rebuked by Christ, deny him, flee from his Crucifixion, only to be filled with his spirit at Pentecost!

Yes, the disciples were men of their times, but they are not artifacts. What they teach is from Christ, and is just as true today, as it was 2000 years ago.

Can the Bible be the "Word of God" when it has Samuel order King Saul in the name of God to 'Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass'

Yes, because if you read the Exodus, the Amalekites tried to slaughter the Jews when they left Egypt and were in the desert. This is why God judges them later on. The Kenites who welcomed and helped the Jews received God's favour. Spoong needs to read his OT, not just did out 'problem texts'

Psalmist writes about the Babylonians who have conquered Judah: 'Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks'?

Yes, in the Psalms, we can curse our enemies, and wish for evil to come upon them. Remember that the code of the Jews is Lex Talionis. Now Christians have been called to a higher thing, in having to love our enemies and do good to them, but this does not appear until Christ, and he specifically mentions it, "God said to you, and eye for an eye, but I say that you are to love thine enemy and do good to him." It is like Christ's teaching on divorce, he was preparing man for his Law by giving him the Law and the Prophets.

Many of these biblical assertions have floated across the Internet in a vareity of versions, making good reading for a biblically illiterate nation. According to the Bible, one of these Internet offerings noted, it is permissible to sell one's daughter into slavery (Exod. 21:7). It is of interest that sons as candidates for slavery are never mentioned.

I'll look that up and quote it. I want to see the context as I trust Spoong about as far as I can throw him.

The execution squads would have to work overtime to keep up with the number of texts from the Bible that call for the death penalty. Violating the Sabbath (Exod. 35:2), cursing (Lev. 24:13 - 14) and blaspheming (Lev. 24:16) are among them.

Yes, what about the part where God curses and entire generation of Jews from entering Canaan? They are condemned to wander in the desert until they all die, and then, only then are they permitted, along with Caleb, the one man who believed in the promises of God.

Yes, God was harsh to the Jews, because he wanted them to be preserved, just as his word was preserved.

And in addition to Spong's discussion of this issue, I would like to add my own amusement of those who pick and choose passages of Leviticus that conveniently fits their political agenda, such as passages in Leviticus that they interpret as condemning romantic love between two men or two women, but ignoring other passages they ought to follow, such as not wearing clothing of mixed fabric, avoding certain types of seafood, and so forth.

Well what does Jesus say about this? You know your scripture Mr. Fun. Maybe he has an answer here.

[Ben Kenobi]

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.

So IOW, girls get special treatment. Why didn't you quote both lines Spoong? Being a servant is far different from being a slave.

If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money

There you go, the Word of God.

Thank you for making me quote this Spoong. Yes it says what you want to say that 'no mention is made of putting your sons into servitude, when verses 2-10 talk about this.

[mrmitchell]

Spong goes pretty far off the edge. He makes some good points amidst the deluge of the rest of his ideas, and I think what Fun quoted is one of them.

Then again, that passage is little more than what all of us here surely already agree to: the guys that go around proclaiming the King James as the inerrant Word of God are not exactly right. However that is probably the largest idea you can extract from the quote without starting a disagreement.

And how he can be used as an authority on anything Christian is beyond me, but he is from time to time...

Spong was a bishop in a very established Christian church. IMO it is a good thing to have guys like him sprinkled in the traditional structure of Christianity, agree with him or not, just to keep people asking questions and reconsidering their perspectives. I feel that we learn more about God and our place as Christians when we critically think through these things, as opposed to just reading a text or listening to an authority and assuming inerrancy.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The first several chapters of the Old Testament were written by Moses.
You can generally find the author of each chapter in the back of the Bible, as well as a summation of what each chapter is about.

Moses never wrote any part of the Old Testament. AFAIK, people began compiling the texts of the Old Testament centuries after Moses' death.

[Nikolai]

Actually, that's what the scientists believe. AFAIK, nothing can be said for certain. Two important reasons scientists believe this, is that what is written in the books of Moses (or whatever the term is in English, the first five books anyway) fits with beliefs among other people centuries after Moses' death, and that the writing styles in the books of Moses is said to be like five different styles.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Moses: The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen...
[drops one of the tablets]
Moses: Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MrFun



Moses never wrote any part of the Old Testament. AFAIK, people began compiling the texts of the Old Testament centuries after Moses' death.

Does that make it any less inspired? Or from Moses?

JM

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Moses: The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen...
[drops one of the tablets]
Moses: Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!

[Ben Kenobi]

Moses never wrote any part of the Old Testament. AFAIK, people began compiling the texts of the Old Testament centuries after Moses' death.

Well, take that up with the Jews

They seem to believe he wrote the first five books and if the same 'textual evidence' that established that he was not the author can come through.

My question is whether they are comparing the hebrew writing styles? What is the source that they are using to base their conclusions on when they say that Moses did not write the books?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun



Moses never wrote any part of the Old Testament. AFAIK, people began compiling the texts of the Old Testament centuries after Moses' death.

Moses wrote the first 5 chapters of the Bible.

Edit, to take out a slanderous remark.

[DaShi]

Slowwhand is a heretic! Burn him!

[SlowwHand]

What do you mean? Heretic? Why? What now?

[DaShi]

The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible!