Should "Bible" = "Word of God"?

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Christy

I just don’t think the solution is ditching the label entirely. Without a lot of institutional power and control of media, you can’t effectively change how people use language. And just changing the label would not change people’s wrong ideas; other words would just become their preferred label for their mistaken concepts.

AMEN, Sister. The best way to overcome poor theology is with good theology and we need to begin where we are at BioLogos, particularly when BioLogos has the Word/Jesus in its name. The message is Jesus Christ is the Word, not the Bible is not the Word. The message should be the same as the John 1 that the universe was created by God the Father through the Logos, rather than in 6 days de novo.

Jesus Himself said that neither He or the Father rested on the sixth day. They continue to create the universe to this day. John 5:18 Version:1.0 John 5:17-18 (NIV2011)
17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

I apologize for using Johannine theology. The capitalization of Father is in the NIV text.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Relates

The capitalization of Father is in the NIV text.

As it deserves to be, if for no other reason than to make a distinction from his apparent earthly father. And it is referring to God, after all.

[LM77 (Liam Maguire)]

@Relates

I apologize for using Johannine theology

Nothin wrong with that. John’s gospel is my favourite of the four, and I adore 1 John. If I gave them impression his theology was off-limits earlier in this thread then I sincerely and humbly apologise. Without reopening old wounds, what I took issue with was reading John’s use of a word into Paul’s use of a word. Again, sorry if I didn’t make that clear Roger. Go in peace, brother, to live and quote from John!

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Relates

The message should be the same as the John 1 that the universe was created by God the Father through the Logos, rather than in 6 days de novo.

Agreed. We don’t need to pit Jesus against the Bible to do that.

[fmiddel]

@Christy

And I agree that people hear a misleading common usage of the phrase Word of God in many churches, where it is attached to claims that about what the Bible is and does that go well beyond what the church and the Bible itself have traditionally been interpreted to mean by affirming that special revelation is God’s word to us. I just don’t think the solution is ditching the label entirely. Without a lot of institutional power and control of media, you can’t effectively change how people use language. And just changing the label would not change people’s wrong ideas; other words would just become their preferred label for their mistaken concepts.

You could be right about that.

[Mark23 (Mina)]

Of course, but those of us who understand islam know that the word of God has a different meaning. in Christianity we believe scripture is the inspired word of God. other religions believe the text is dictated by their god. It is different,.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

No, many of us who are Christians do not believe the Bible is the “Word of God.”

It is composed of writings, words of men and possibly women, that were written by men and women inspired by God to write.

The scriptures, in general, claim to be the writings of humans.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Mark23

@03Cobra

No, many of us who are Christians do not believe the Bible is the “Word of God.”

And by “many of us,” Vance mostly means himself. He was not very successful in showing that aversion to the term “Word of God” is all that widespread.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@Christy

I just don’t think the solution is ditching the label entirely. Without a lot of institutional power and control of media, you can’t effectively change how people use language. And just changing the label would not change people’s wrong ideas; other words would just become their preferred label for their mistaken concepts.

I think ditching the label “the Word of God” for the Bible is a good first step in diminishing the negative effects of Biblidolaty.

As long as we are reenforcing error with our words, we are setting people up for failure.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@Christy

And by “many of us,” Vance mostly means himself. He was not very successful in showing that aversion to the term “Word of God” is all that widespread.

You are very sure of your views in your insular environment, but I disagree.

Nevertheless, you should be concerned about the damage such inaccurate nomenclature ignites.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

I am back from my cruise for a couple of days before my wife takes me off again.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@03Cobra

You are very sure of your views in your insular environment, but I disagree.

I work for an international Evangelical organization. I’m pretty confident I regularly interact with a far more diverse group of Christians than you do on a regular basis. I don’t know where you get the insular environment thing. Just this week I have heard people from Canada, the Netherlands, Britain, Ghana, Honduras, and Peru all refer to the Word of God, meaning the Bible. No one objected or misunderstood.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

Talking with people who agree with you in other countries is geographical diversity, not diversity of opinion.

I say your views are insular because you do not seem to know the damage that is caused by mischaracterizing the Bible as the “Word of God.”

You think the people did not misunderstand because the misunderstanding is insidious, creating a misconception that can yield a crisis of faith.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@03Cobra

I say your views are insular because you do not seem to know the damage that is caused by mischaracterizing the Bible as the “Word of God.”

And once again, you have done nothing to show that calling the Bible the Word of God is actually causing damage or that any representative contingent of Christianity has identified this as a problem. It is a bare assertion.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

If you can’t or won’t see that declaring writings of people, writings which have minor errors, the “Word of God,” a name the writings do not call themselves, sets people up for a potential crisis of faith when they find what they thought was the “Word of God” is imperfect, then I can’t convince you.

[Mark23 (Mina)]

Cobra, you mean you are saying, if I understand you in the right way, that we have to be careful as Christians, to call our scripture the “Word of God” and act like if it means the words in the OT and NT are quite, literally, verbatim words from the mouth of God. Is that what you mean? I think you are right, if so, because in Islam, the qu’ran is claim to be dictation from allah to mohammad, so we need to make sure to differentiate God inspired and God dictated.

Of course, that does not mean it is wrong as a Christian to say it is the Word of God what is in the Bible, OT and NT. You just have to be careful the meaning. I think Christy is doing nothing wrong by calling the Bible word of God.

[Bill_II]

@03Cobra

If you can’t or won’t see that declaring writings of people, writings which have minor errors,

Actually it is more like major errors, but who is counting.

@03Cobra

sets people up for a potential crisis of faith when they find what they thought was the “Word of God” is imperfect,

So you believe Holy Scripture is imperfect, correct? So on what do you base your belief? Pick and choose the good parts?

[03Cobra (Vance)]

Bill, I base my belief both on the credible (although imperfect in minor details) testimony of the multiple witnesses (including John and Peter and many others through Luke) and the evidence God has given us in creation.

Reinforcing these ancient proofs are the continuing evidence God provides to those who are willing to accept the evidence.

If I had to have a perfect source to believe anything, I certainly would bother to watch the news or read a newspaper or study a textbook.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bill_II

So you believe Holy Scripture is imperfect, correct? So on what do you base your belief? Pick and choose the good parts?

Does this mean that you think that Scripture is some how perfect? Does it have to be?

As for “proofs” of imperfection? Where do you want to start? How much time have you got?

As for “picking and choosing”? That is so simplistic and erroneous. It is not about emphasising or ignoring.it is about understanding. And not just assuming that everything is obvious and literal.

Inerrancy gives a certain mindset about usage and quoting that causes more harm than good.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Thomas Jefferson and you have the same approach. He took a blade to his Bible and cut out what he didn’t like.