Is the Bible the Word of God?

[Lees]

This is a response to dneal, and others, who, for some reason love to ask questions, but seldom answer any. They feel the need to question my topic, 'The Kingdom of God According to the Bible the Word of God'. See post #(81).

The point of that topic was/is to describe the Kingdom of God according to the Bible. Why? Because denal's understanding of the Kingdom of God is contrary to the Bible, though he likes to use the Bible.

And, of course, the first thing dneal and others must do, is attack the credibility of the Bible because they don't believe it is God's Word. 'Yea hath God said?' Which is fine with me, you don't have to. But that topic was for those who do.

My statement is this. One can learn about God only if God reveals it. Even the creation, is a revelation from God as it shows there is a Creator. Further revelation must always come from God. And of course, it has come in the written text of the Bible.

If the Bible is not the Word of God, then don't use it to try and understand anything about God. If the Bible is not the Word of God, then it is just the words of men. Which means what is said is not about God, but about man.

Strange, even humorous, when I first came here everyone was upset. They would ask and accuse, Why are you here? Who are you? You're just some troll. Quit hijacking this topic. One even started a new topic and asked me to go over there instead. So, I started my own topic. Then, here they come. Asking questions, and upset when I don't answer. They forget the many questions they refused to answer of mine. They wonder why I don't debate. They forget the times when they left the debate and promised not to come back. Now they want to talk?

The atheist and liberal christian, which is just an atheist also, thinks the Christian is troubled by their atheism. The Christian should never be troubled by the atheist's beliefs. The atheist is free to believe whatever he likes. Start all the threads and topics you want to prove your atheistic belief. It does not affect me whatsoever. You do not change what I believe and you do not change the Truth. As I have said before, neither your or my faith, changes what the Truth is. But it does define us in reference to the Truth. Which we will both know on that day.

So, yes, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible being the 66 books with 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. I believe the King James Version is the best and safest version we have of the Bible. I do not hold to the apocryphal books being inspired by God, thus they are not the Word of God.

The atheist says, 'prove it'. Why? I am not required to prove it. I am required to believe it. It says it is, and I believe it.

Lees

[kazoolaw]

”For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears”
2 Tim 4:3
KJV

[dneal]

This is a response to dneal, and others, who, for some reason love to ask questions, but seldom answer any. They feel the need to question my topic, 'The Kingdom of God According to the Bible the Word of God'. See post #(81).

The point of that topic was/is to describe the Kingdom of God according to the Bible. Why? Because denal's understanding of the Kingdom of God is contrary to the Bible, though he likes to use the Bible.

And, of course, the first thing dneal and others must do, is attack the credibility of the Bible because they don't believe it is God's Word. 'Yea hath God said?' Which is fine with me, you don't have to. But that topic was for those who do.

My statement is this. One can learn about God only if God reveals it. Even the creation, is a revelation from God as it shows there is a Creator. Further revelation must always come from God. And of course, it has come in the written text of the Bible.

If the Bible is not the Word of God, then don't use it to try and understand anything about God. If the Bible is not the Word of God, then it is just the words of men. Which means what is said is not about God, but about man.

Strange, even humorous, when I first came here everyone was upset. They would ask and accuse, Why are you here? Who are you? You're just some troll. Quit hijacking this topic. One even started a new topic and asked me to go over there instead. So, I started my own topic. Then, here they come. Asking questions, and upset when I don't answer. They forget the many questions they refused to answer of mine. They wonder why I don't debate. They forget the times when they left the debate and promised not to come back. Now they want to talk?

The atheist and liberal christian, which is just an atheist also, thinks the Christian is troubled by their atheism. The Christian should never be troubled by the atheist's beliefs. The atheist is free to believe whatever he likes. Start all the threads and topics you want to prove your atheistic belief. It does not affect me whatsoever. You do not change what I believe and you do not change the Truth. As I have said before, neither your or my faith, changes what the Truth is. But it does define us in reference to the Truth. Which we will both know on that day.

So, yes, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible being the 66 books with 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. I believe the King James Version is the best and safest version we have of the Bible. I do not hold to the apocryphal books being inspired by God, thus they are not the Word of God.

The atheist says, 'prove it'. Why? I am not required to prove it. I am required to believe it. It says it is, and I believe it.

Lees

Keep painting that scarecrow.

[Lees]

@dneal

You asked the questions. So I respond. No scarecrow here. What have I said here that is not true?

Lees

[TSherbs]

The atheist says, 'prove it'. Why? I am not required to prove it.

If I remember correctly, you have challenged each of us here with the same request: "prove it."

All along we have known that you think that the Bible is true because you believe it to be so. That is what we have said. That is a sufficient answer for you, but not for some others.

And if you do not understand why your barrage of claims and aspersions towards others created friction in your early posts (see, particularly, your comments defending the South and defending slavery), then you really have gained no personal insight over these months.

To answer the question you have posed in the thread title here: No. The texts of the Judeo-Christian line of believers are man-made creations giving voice to their conceptions of the workings of the cosmos, their (mis)understanding of the events of history, their attempts to manage and control human impulses and hierarchy and needs, and to sing occasional songs of mercy or supplication in the face of annihilation.

edited to add: By the way, I am a member now of an adult religious discussion group through a church, the members of which would likely say that my longer answer here actually means a "yes": that this is what "God" is--the expression (the embodiment through texts and rituals and symbology) of a yearning for transcendence and comfort and love and justice and meaning in a frightening and ephemeral existence. But I know that "Lees" would take this as a "No," so I started with that "No."

[dneal]

Because you've constructed a lengthy strawman full of sweeping accusations that apply to various posters, and "answered" the question with a non sequitur.

This is a response to dneal, and others, who, for some reason love to ask questions, but seldom answer any. They feel the need to question my topic, 'The Kingdom of God According to the Bible the Word of God'. See post #(81).

I answer questions. I didn't question your topic. I questioned your premise. Let's revisit post 81:

Lees has gone on for nearly 80 posts, posing a significant question in the OP but never establishing an answer for it.

If the Bible is not the Word of God, then it has no authority to reveal the 'Kingdom of God'.

Indeed. While you have expounded on your interpretation of the "Kingdom of God", you have yet to establish that the Bible is the word of God.

It is currently an assumed premise, and your posts are arguments using inductive logic. If your premise is true, and the logic sound, the conclusion should be true as well. But, you have not proven your premise, and your lengthy exposition stands only on one assumption.

If you accept it as a matter of faith, fine; but then your 'proofs' are also merely a matter of your faith.

But even before one may argue whether or not the Bible (or which part) is or isn't the word of God, one must first define what they mean by "the Bible".

Is it a particular version or translation? Which one, and why?

Your next two paragraphs are:

The point of that topic was/is to describe the Kingdom of God according to the Bible. Why? Because denal's understanding of the Kingdom of God is contrary to the Bible, though he likes to use the Bible.

And, of course, the first thing dneal and others must do, is attack the credibility of the Bible because they don't believe it is God's Word. 'Yea hath God said?' Which is fine with me, you don't have to. But that topic was for those who do.

I see no answer there. I do see more assertions with no substantiation. But that's what you do.

Let's continue:

My statement is this. One can learn about God only if God reveals it. Even the creation, is a revelation from God as it shows there is a Creator. Further revelation must always come from God. And of course, it has come in the written text of the Bible.

More assertions with no substantiation, with nebulous terms that allow for a great deal of interpretation. How does god reveal himself? Through the Bible? Only through the Bible? Do these further revelations only come through the text of the Bible? If the Bible is required, how was the Bible written? If not only through the Bible, then the Bible is not required. It is additive.

At least you've begun to address the question though.

If the Bible is not the Word of God, then don't use it to try and understand anything about God. If the Bible is not the Word of God, then it is just the words of men. Which means what is said is not about God, but about man.

Now you move to false dichotomies.

One may try to understand god without the Bible. One exists, has consciousness, and is aware of their mortality. One may contemplate reality and suppose a god without the Bible, as humans have done throughout history. You're not making any relevant point.

The second sentence is a non sequitur. the Bible may indeed be the words of men. Men wrote it down, after all; and men selected which writings were included and excluded, after all. the Bible may indeed say things about god, even though it was written by men.

Strange, even humorous, when I first came here everyone was upset. They would ask and accuse, Why are you here? Who are you? You're just some troll. Quit hijacking this topic. One even started a new topic and asked me to go over there instead. So, I started my own topic. Then, here they come. Asking questions, and upset when I don't answer. They forget the many questions they refused to answer of mine. They wonder why I don't debate. They forget the times when they left the debate and promised not to come back. Now they want to talk?

Now you have returned to irrelevant accusations, seemingly upset while you claim it is others that are upset. At any rate, it still doesn't address the question.

The atheist and liberal christian, which is just an atheist also, thinks the Christian is troubled by their atheism. The Christian should never be troubled by the atheist's beliefs. The atheist is free to believe whatever he likes. Start all the threads and topics you want to prove your atheistic belief. It does not affect me whatsoever. You do not change what I believe and you do not change the Truth. As I have said before, neither your or my faith, changes what the Truth is. But it does define us in reference to the Truth. Which we will both know on that day.

Now you're moving on to criticisms of the "atheist" and "liberal christian", introducing nothing relevant to the question except to assert that you have the truth, and any other view is wrong.

It reminds me of Twain's remark that Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight.

But I digress with your digression. Let's continue.

So, yes, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible being the 66 books with 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. I believe the King James Version is the best and safest version we have of the Bible. I do not hold to the apocryphal books being inspired by God, thus they are not the Word of God.

The atheist says, 'prove it'. Why? I am not required to prove it. I am required to believe it. It says it is, and I believe it.

Yes, we are all quite aware of your belief. If that is you (finally) just saying that it's a matter of your faith, and that you therefore have no rational argument; I'm fine with that - which I noted originally. You do make clear which bible and which version, which does answer one question posed; although you have not said "why" other than (again) that you believe it to be so.

That is why I didn't bother with a response. You've made your leap of faith, but now while standing on the other side, refuse to acknowledge there was a chasm of the unknown that required the leap. If you're now blind to that chasm, then your faith is also blind.

TSherbs, early in the "definition of Christian" thread, opined that "excess verbiage on this matter [a universally accepted definition of what a "Christian" is] strikes me as the hissing of the serpent in the garden."

My response there, as here with your objections to questions of dogma, remains Jefferson's Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.. I am not afraid. Perhaps you'll find god and his angels also telling man to "be not afraid".

[dneal]

Moving this over here where it belongs:

The notion that the Bible is the word of god has always seemed strange to me. God speaking to Moses is the word of god. The 10 commandments are the word of god. Gabriel or other angels delivering god’s messages are essentially the word of god.

Next one moves to the inspired word of god, which requires another step of faith. Even the prophets are man’s writings, believed to be inspired by god, agreed to by other men - the most questionable being Paul (followed by Mohammed and Joseph Smith). Were songs sung by David the word of god?

I mean no offense to those that believe. All people must make some leap of faith. Even atheists. The point of those leaps is to have a grounded worldview in the face of the unknowable. My questions are academic, which I separate from my own beliefs.

These are comments that deserve response. But not in this topic.

[TSherbs]

Moving this over here where it belongs:

The notion that the Bible is the word of god has always seemed strange to me. God speaking to Moses is the word of god. The 10 commandments are the word of god. Gabriel or other angels delivering god’s messages are essentially the word of god.

Next one moves to the inspired word of god, which requires another step of faith. Even the prophets are man’s writings, believed to be inspired by god, agreed to by other men - the most questionable being Paul (followed by Mohammed and Joseph Smith). Were songs sung by David the word of god?

I mean no offense to those that believe. All people must make some leap of faith. Even atheists. The point of those leaps is to have a grounded worldview in the face of the unknowable. My questions are academic, which I separate from my own beliefs.

These are comments that deserve response. But not in this topic.

I'd be interested in a response from Kaz on any of these points. I am not interested in arguing or debating it, but I am interested in reading his response.

[kazoolaw]

“God speaking to Moses is the word of god. The 10 commandments are the word of god. Gabriel or other angels delivering god’s messages are essentially the word of god.”

I’m not clear on your meaning. Are you agreeing that these three examples are the word of God? And do we start there and work back to define terms (“God” “word”)? Or something else entirely?

[dneal]

Setting aside a question of mythology versus reality, and assuming the stories are accurate... I mean that it logically follows that God* speaking directly, or through one of his angels, is literally the word (words) of God.

The next step removed would be prophets dreaming or receiving visions from God, and transcribing them. This becomes nebulous, and depends on the particular instance. Did God speak directly in this dream? was it communicated by an angelic messenger? or was it just some bizarre set of visions (e.g.: Revelations) that the writer assumed was from God. Semantic arguments become more credible, depending on the circumstances.

A step further removed would be something like Paul's letters. One man communicating to other men being considered the "word of God" becomes a much more difficult argument.

Lastly we arrive at the problem of who to believe. Where is the actual authority (God) telling men who has received his word, and who was just dreaming or delusional? The same arguments one may present for any of the prophets also applies to Mohammed and Joseph Smith. One has a hard time arguing that John's Revelation is more or less authentic than Mohammed's Koran or Smith's Book of Mormon. God is silent on the matter, which leaves it to man.

-edit-

*God of Abraham

[kazoolaw]

The Word of God is an interesting place to start. There are the words of God, and there is the Word of God. ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1)

There are the words God spoke, as you noted. God spoke to Moses. A number of times. The 10 Commandments were written on tablets of stone. Moses asked God who should he tell the Israelites had spoken to him. God replied "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14)" We discussed the significance of this before, and will return to it when we see that Jesus identified Himself as I AM.

God spoke the world into existence as recorded in Genesis. God spoke to Adam and Eve, and to Jonah the prophet who didn't want to hear and ran the other way. God spoke verbally, and it is recorded that He communicated by way of dreams. At one point a hand appeared and wrote on a wall, and the words were explained.

God is recorded as speaking in the New Testament as well: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Matt 3:17 Going back to John 1:1, and on to John 1:14 "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Here I expect we diverge, as Jesus' words are the words of God. I'll pause before talking about the last two paragraphs.

[dneal]

Bear in mind the context is the claim that The Bible is the "word of God".

I accept that it is scripture, in the normal sense.

A sacred writing or book.
A passage from such a writing or book.
The writings collected as the Bible.

At some point (and I'm not sure when), it became "The Word of God" or "The Divinely Inspired Word of God"; as if the entirety was dictated verbatim (which is a bit hyperbolic to say, in order to demonstrate the point). Sometimes it is "The Revealed Word of God", which is more inclusive and allows a bit more leeway; but the general notion is similar that it all originates from God. That was taught in the Baptist Church, and many other protestant denominations hold the view. Lees seems to advocate it.

That seems strange to me, as noted in the earlier post; since much of it is a historical writing rather than divine decrees. Sacred? sure. Holy? no argument. Does it contain the word(s) of God? of course. But in its entirety? Is a history of Samson "the word of God"? The apostles recounting Jesus' times "the word of God"? I think not, making the claim that the Bible is the word of God a bit absurd.

[kazoolaw]

I can see your point. I think that there may be 3 "words" in play here.

[kazoolaw]

The common formulation is that the Bible is inspired by God, and without error in its original form. Not being a theologian, I think of as Samson’s story as the word of God because He inspired the writing by the human author. There is aldpso the element of tracking within those accounts. It also accounts for Paul’s teachings, as transcriptions of God’s inspiration, being included as the word of God.

[dneal]

To some extent, I can cede the argument of inspiration. That introduces a problem however, in that it becomes a claim anyone can make. An extreme example might be a serial killer, who obeyed "the voices" they believed to be from God.

How does one sort through the claims and determine the veracity? This is the problem of the early church, and prompts discussion of the various councils gathering and making the determination(s) of what is included and excluded from the Bible - which still differs to this day, depending on denomination - and are all determined by men.

These questions lie in the chasm of the unknown/unknowable, which require Kierkegaard's leap of faith. True faith is belief, in spite of those uncertainties. One may assert that where they landed after their "leap" is the absolute truth (as we see Lees doing), but it has little value to one who landed in a different place. Both must address the uncertainties as best they can, knowing they are unprovable; or it becomes an argument of opinion or taste. Some like the Catholic flavored ice cream, some the Protestant. Some the KJV and some the NIV. It is insufficient for one to say "I'm right" and omit the "because...". Often the "because" is interpretations of passages while ignoring contradictions.

[dneal]

I can see your point. I think that there may be 3 "words" in play here.

This is a notion that piques my curiosity.

[TSherbs]

Looking to Strong's Concordance for "word" (logos) [λόγος in the original Greek], I followed a link to this Blue Letter Bible history of the usage and meaning of the term "logos" (pre-Christian Greek, Hebrew, and Christian). Very interesting: Blue Letter Bible on "logos"

Also Strong's: https://biblehub.com/greek/logos_3056.htm

[dneal]

“Logos” in the classical sense usually relates to “reason”, and is the root for “logic”. It has also been used in relation to Christian trinity, usually referring to Jesus.

More varying meanings. Hmmmm…

The use of “word” in the phrase “word of god” isn’t clear. I see three implications: literal, inspired and revealed. I’m not sure if those are inclusive, exclusive or contradictory.

[kazoolaw]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” John 1:1-3
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

John makes the statement that Jesus is the Word, the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God. The logos became flesh, and Jesus lived among us on earth.

[Lees]

@dneal concerning your post #(6)

No scarecrow here. My accusations are true. Any who doubt need only go back and read our many discussions and count the many unanswered questions by you and others. And, just pay attention to our discussion now and see how long it is before you refuse to answer my questions.

Your attack upon the Bible is an assertion/accusation. You don't believe what the Bible says. The Bible says it is the Word of God. You say it is not the word of god. In other words, the Bible asserts, not me. I believe it.

Now, first questions for you. You say in your post #(85) in my thread concerning the Kingdom of God, "God speaking to Moses is the word of god. The 10 commandments are the word of god. Gabriel or the other angels delivering gods message are essentially the word of god." How did you arrive to the conclusion that these certain verses are the Word of God? Can you prove it? or are you just 'asserting' it. Do you believe it?

No false dichotomies here. If the Bible is only the word of men, then it is about men, and not God. It is man creating a god in his image. How he perceives God. Just like you do.

My accusations are true and not irrelevant. Show me where they are false.

As to the question, 'Is the Bible the Word of God', my answer is yes. As I have said. It claims to be the Word of God. I believe it. You and others don't. My faith is reasonable. Because I believe the Bible is the Word of God, I can trust and know that what I learn from the Bible, gives me a true understanding of God. You however, don't have a Book that is the Word of God. Yet you like to speak as though you know something of God. And of course your god is always with a little 'g'...as it should be.

Lees