Nick, you seem to think a person can’t know anything unless it is heard from the initial source.
How do you think so many people became Christians in the second century, before the Bible was compiled and distributed?
I don’t think that was his implication at all. A person today can become a Christian without ever seeing a Bible.
Then perhaps you should read his post again.
They can, and it is wrong to claim every word written by Christians, even if canonized, are the Word of God.
You ask a semantic question, you get a semantic answer.
If you want to cal the Bible the “Word of God,” then you have made a statement that is factually and semantically wrong.
I have. He said nor implied anything about “an initial source.” He was simply stating that if the Bible is not reliable as it is then it is not reliable for anything.
Perhaps you should read his post again.
Wrong.
We certainly read his post differently.
What I read was:
‘If bible is not the word of God…then we dont really know what God said.’
So He dismisses the scriptural text if it is not the “word of God.”
Ah, an objection devoid of evidence.
Why?
How?
As should anyone.
Not at all unlike:
Repeating,
We know what nonbelievers do. Christians should not emulate them.
My reasons have been fully presented before. Did you miss them?
The Bible claims to be written by people, not by God.
It often states the opinions of the authors.
The Bible has different meanings for the term “Word of God,” and it never means “Bible” in scripture.
So calling the Bible the “Word of God” is making a statement contrary to the Bible. Isn’t that ironic?
1 Like
So the divinity of Jesus is the thought of the author? Or more accurate a maybe not so well remembered memory?
Nick, John certainly reported in his gospel that Jesus was God.
He had walked with Jesus, learned from Him, seen His transfiguration, heard the voice from heaven.
By the way, in the passage below, is the one making a supposition John or God? Whose words are these:
But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
I said the bible not Scriptures.
And you will not find a single version of most of the Old Testament books. There are several scroll of each book, redacted in some way or other by the scribes.
And as New testament Greek is a dead language… anything we come up with is a translation of sorts.
How on earth are you going to define a version? Like I said, the nearest is still the Vulgate, because that is the first script of the accepted content of the bible as we know it. And it is in Latin, which makes it already translated.
Which makes anyone who tries to hold onto the English script of the Bible as inerrant, one sandwich short of a picnic. (Even if you ignore the glaring errors that are conveniently “harmonised”!)
The Bible is “the word of God” inasmuch as it is about His revelation, not because He had any direct part in authoring most if not all of it. (Even the words said by Him are second hand at best, being reported)
Richard
I can’t help but read this as a false dichotomy that presents a straw man view of inspiration. Perhaps I have misread your intent, if so, could you please clarify for me?
Either way, I do not believe that the doctrine of inspiration requires divine dictation. For a scriptural example, in Hebrews 3:7-4:7 who does the author say is speaking in the quoted sections from Psalm 95: The Holy Spirit or David? Both (Hebrews 3:7, 4:7).
As for John’s gospel, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the following questions:
- How can you know that John recorded his experiences of Jesus accurately without error, interpolation, or exaggeration?
- John records many things the synoptic writers do not, how do you know John did not fabricate these events to serve his own agenda?
1 Like
Generally speaking, the church has done this by consensus (eg. councils, creeds, etc.) and textual criticism rather than individual opinion. As to textual criticism, several definitive text-critical editions of the Hebrew bible exist, such as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Oxford Hebrew Bible, and the SBL Hebrew Bible - and that’s before one considers the LXX and Greek New Testament.
I should also point out the pursuit of ‘definitive’ editions and textual criticism is hardly a modern invention. Two examples are of note. First, I would suggest that the intent of the Codex Sinaiticus, etc. was to produce a definitive collection of manuscripts, a kind of proto-canon. Second, Jerome’s Vulgate was a work of textual criticism since he searched the empire for the very best Latin manuscripts to use as the basis of his edition.
I should point out, that most articulations of inerrancy do not claim that the English gloss is without error, only the original autographs. Yes, I am aware that this is still not without objections and weakness, but it is, for our discussions, an important clarification.
As to my view on views on the matter, I follow the theology that the translators of the King James Bible set out in their preface:
wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English*, set foorth by men of our profession… containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
* or any other language for that matter.
2 Likes
On your first question, I can’t know that and neither can you. You may think you can, but that would be wishful thinking. Do you think that we can know John recorded it all perfectly and completely accurately? If so, how?
What we can take confidence in is that every canon of the NT has included John’s gospel and the early church leaders used and endorsed John’s gospel. That is sufficient evidence of its reliability for me.
On your second question, the answer is the same.
On Hebrews 3, fell free to quote the passage and give your opinion and I will reply. I have already answered two of your four questions and don’t wish to engage in a Gish Gallop.
I thought of that codex too. You do know, I suppose, that it included numerous books not now considered canonical.