Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then why do so many of you insist on calling it, God's Living Word? His Son was the Living Word, the Bible is but the word of God.
Because scripture is said to be "God-breathed". God inspired the Scriptures.
But the "Word" of John 1 is not the same "God-breathed" word of scripture. John kind of uses a metaphor there...but he's not suggesting that Jesus is God breathing.
It's like the word "ark". Noah built one....but then what did the Israelites carry around? Oh ya...an "ark". Same word....different usage. No one believes Noah and his family climbed into a table-sized box....nor does anyone believe the Israelites carried around a huge ship.
Then why do so many of you insist on calling it, God's Living Word? His Son was the Living Word, the Bible is but the word of God.
LOL, that terminology in any other setting implies that it is an "open for further additions and edits" document. At a prior job, there was documentation that would later be used in your yearly review. My boss called it, "A living document." What did she mean? She meant that I was expected to add to it and so was she.
How is a closed canon of scripture "living"? I've always wondered that. Verbiage and words are funny things, aren't they?
LOL, that terminology in any other setting implies that it is an "open for further additions and edits" document. At a prior job, there was documentation that would later be used in your yearly review. My boss called it, "A living document." What did she mean? She meant that I was expected to add to it and so was she.
How is a closed canon of scripture "living"? I've always wondered that. Verbiage and words are funny things, aren't they?
The Bible is "living" in the sense that it speaks to very generation within their own CULTURAL boundaries. Fundamentalists pick the Bible out of 20 centuries of time and a completely different culture and plop it down in 21st century America and think what it said back then can be viewed in the same way now.
And they don't want to admit this, but their views have altered over time in response to cultural pressures. Not many will any longer say the Bible endorses slavery, but it certainly doesn't clearly speak against it. MOST churches are moving away from believing the scribal addition in I Cor 14:34-35 of women keeping silent in church and towards Paul's writing in I Cor 11 that explains HOW women should "prophesy" (preach) in the church by using the cultural norm of covering their heads (another cultural view that is long dead except at Easter).
Further, some are even seeing the words of Peter in Act 2 where he quotes Joel 2:8 (I think) about God pouring out His spirit and both young men AND young women "prophesying."
But in other ways they reject cultural changes. In reading the words of an early nineteenth century Presbyterian minister defending the enslavement of blacks, he used words like "abolition will ruin our nation." And "the sexual immorality of Negroes is a well known fact." And, "it is the natural order of things and punishment for the sin of Ham, that Negroes are to be slaves."
Take slaves and Negroes out of those lines, drop in homosexuality, and Wallah, you have updated Fundamentalism with the new enemy go God that they will work to purge.
And when they speak of inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, they add something to the Bible which it does not claim for itself. Their punishment for this effrontery is found in Rev 22:18.
P.S. Considering the number of times the Bible has already been edited, it appears early Christians had no problem with it.
The Bible is "living" in the sense that it speaks to very generation within their own CULTURAL boundaries. Fundamentalists pick the Bible out of 20 centuries of time and a completely different culture and plop it down in 21st century America and think what it said back then can be viewed in the same way now.
I'd consider myself a Fundamentalist...and I fully recognize that we need to read the Bible in the context of what the original author intended. Please don't assume we are all looking for a rigid, wooden reading of the text that has nothing to do with context.
Quote:
And they don't want to admit this, but their views have altered over time in response to cultural pressures. Not many will any longer say the Bible endorses slavery, but it certainly doesn't clearly speak against it. MOST churches are moving away from believing the scribal addition in I Cor 14:34-35 of women keeping silent in church and towards Paul's writing in I Cor 11 that explains HOW women should "prophesy" (preach) in the church by using the cultural norm of covering their heads (another cultural view that is long dead except at Easter).
It doesn't endorse it. God allowed it because men's hearts were hard. When men's hearts are right...they don't practice slavery.
As for the issue of 1 Cor...the point is that the women should not preach or teach--as he wrote to Timothy. He never said a woman shouldn't speak in church.
Quote:
Further, some are even seeing the words of Peter in Act 2 where he quotes Joel 2:8 (I think) about God pouring out His spirit and both young men AND young women "prophesying."
But in other ways they reject cultural changes. In reading the words of an early nineteenth century Presbyterian minister defending the enslavement of blacks, he used words like "abolition will ruin our nation." And "the sexual immorality of Negroes is a well known fact." And, "it is the natural order of things and punishment for the sin of Ham, that Negroes are to be slaves."
I would never suggest such a thing.
Quote:
Take slaves and Negroes out of those lines, drop in homosexuality, and Wallah, you have updated Fundamentalism with the new enemy go God that they will work to purge.
The Bible does explicitly state that homosexual acts are immoral, though. There really is no way around it.
Quote:
And when they speak of inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, they add something to the Bible which it does not claim for itself. Their punishment for this effrontery is found in Rev 22:18.
Scripture is said to be "God-breathed". It's inspired. Pardon us if we believe that God doesn't make mistakes.
I'd consider myself a Fundamentalist...and I fully recognize that we need to read the Bible in the context of what the original author intended. Please don't assume we are all looking for a rigid, wooden reading of the text that has nothing to do with context.
It doesn't endorse it. God allowed it because men's hearts were hard. When men's hearts are right...they don't practice slavery.
As for the issue of 1 Cor...the point is that the women should not preach or teach--as he wrote to Timothy. He never said a woman shouldn't speak in church.
I would never suggest such a thing.
The Bible does explicitly state that homosexual acts are immoral, though. There really is no way around it.
Scripture is said to be "God-breathed". It's inspired. Pardon us if we believe that God doesn't make mistakes.
Do you believe Abraham was inspired and is the source of inspiration? But he was a liar and told a foreign King that his wife was really his sister.
Do you believe Jacob was inspired and is a source of inspiration? But he was a cheater who swindled his older brother out of his birthright.
Do you believe Sampson was inspired and is a source of inspiration? But he lacked self-discipline and fell under the charms of a foreign woman.
Do you believe David was inspired and is a sorce of inspiration? But David was an adulterer and murderer.
Do you believe Peter was inspired and is a source of inspiration? But when faced with Jesus' pending crucifixion he argued so vehemently Jesus said, "Get thee behind me Satan." And ultimately Peter would deny Christ three times.
The point is this, the Bible shows example after example of God choosing to work through flawed men, whom I'm relatively certain you will agree are inspirations. But when it comes to the Bible itself you want to change God's mode of operendi to using men to create "perfect" documents. All through the record of Scripture He used flawed men to inspire---but you wouldn't accept their lies, adultery, cheating, nor murder to be "inspirational." You would see there are some things that may be illustrative in warning, but not in practice.
Yet you remain unable to see Scripture in the same light.
Can you give me a clear, precise verse of scripture stating the Bible is inerrant and/or infallible? Don't quote something about inspiration and jump to a different conclusion. I believe Scripture to be inspired. Orthodox Christianity believes it to be inspired. But it takes modernistic, cultic fundamentalism to ADD something to Scripture that simply isn't there. Rev. 22:18
Because scripture is said to be "God-breathed". God inspired the Scriptures.
But the "Word" of John 1 is not the same "God-breathed" word of scripture. John kind of uses a metaphor there...but he's not suggesting that Jesus is God breathing.
It's like the word "ark". Noah built one....but then what did the Israelites carry around? Oh ya...an "ark". Same word....different usage. No one believes Noah and his family climbed into a table-sized box....nor does anyone believe the Israelites carried around a huge ship.
It is also the living word as it brings life. It is not a dead document as it fits the needs of those living today. It is also, according to Jesus, bread and also water of life. Those who can't figure this out may be reading the Bible, but not paying any real attention.
It is also the living word as it brings life. It is not a dead document as it fits the needs of those living today. It is also, according to Jesus, bread and also water of life. Those who can't figure this out may be reading the Bible, but not paying any real attention.
Yes---I realize that it is living and active, sharper than any 2-edged sword.
But Jesus is not the Bible. The Bible is not Jesus.
Do you believe Abraham was inspired and is the source of inspiration? But he was a liar and told a foreign King that his wife was really his sister.
Abraham was not "God-breathed".
Quote:
Do you believe Jacob was inspired and is a source of inspiration? But he was a cheater who swindled his older brother out of his birthright.
Jacob wasnot "God-breathed".
Quote:
Do you believe Sampson was inspired and is a source of inspiration? But he lacked self-discipline and fell under the charms of a foreign woman.
Samson was not God-breathed.
Quote:
Do you believe David was inspired and is a sorce of inspiration? But David was an adulterer and murderer.
David was not "God-breathed".
Quote:
Do you believe Peter was inspired and is a source of inspiration? But when faced with Jesus' pending crucifixion he argued so vehemently Jesus said, "Get thee behind me Satan." And ultimately Peter would deny Christ three times.
Peter was not "God-breathed".
Quote:
The point is this, the Bible shows example after example of God choosing to work through flawed men, whom I'm relatively certain you will agree are inspirations. But when it comes to the Bible itself you want to change God's mode of operendi to using men to create "perfect" documents. All through the record of Scripture He used flawed men to inspire---but you wouldn't accept their lies, adultery, cheating, nor murder to be "inspirational." You would see there are some things that may be illustrative in warning, but not in practice.
Yes---he worked through flawed men. There does not exist a claim in scripture that any of those men are flawless, or that God prohibited them from sinning.
Quote:
Yet you remain unable to see Scripture in the same light.
You would need to demonstrate a time when God has lied.
Quote:
Can you give me a clear, precise verse of scripture stating the Bible is inerrant and/or infallible? Don't quote something about inspiration and jump to a different conclusion. I believe Scripture to be inspired. Orthodox Christianity believes it to be inspired. But it takes modernistic, cultic fundamentalism to ADD something to Scripture that simply isn't there. Rev. 22:18
John 17:17 states that God's word is Truth.
2 Tim 3:15-17 also is a good statement regarding Scripture. Why would Paul think it good for all correction if it was flawed?
Yes---I realize that it is living and active, sharper than any 2-edged sword.
But Jesus is not the Bible. The Bible is not Jesus.
True.
I simply present it as
The Bible is God's word.
Jesus is the Word of God.
The Bible tells us, using words, about the Word of God (among other things). Gotta listen to both.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
