Except you have it backward … it’s like Christy (mistakenly in your estimation) calling you ‘Vance’ and you correcting her (and all of society) by telling her that actually that is [should be] pronounced ‘Joe’. But while we can certainly respect and honor your wish to be called whatever you want, society at large will continue to see ‘Vance’ and apply their established conventions when pronouncing it.
2 Likes
Well, we disagree on this point.
1 Like
This was not my personal decision. The community of English speakers began calling the Bible the Word of God centuries before I was born.
3 Likes
Sounds good to me.
But we aren’t talking about personal judgments or opinions we are talking about names. The Holy Bible is a book title chosen by some English publishers. So if you are referring to the NIV, for example, it is correct to use the book title.
According to the MLA style guide, the correct way to cite it is " The Holy Bible: New International Version . Zondervan, 1984." When people use the book title, they are not actually making an assessment about whether the Bible is holy or not in their estimation. If I give you directions to the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I don’t have to believe that Mary is blessed or a virgin. It’s just a name.
3 Likes
I have just read over this whole thread.
I want to clarify, for those of you here who don’t know me, that there are about three things in life I take seriously (and not even all the time), and what people call the Bible isn’t one of them. I am in this conversation because it is entertaining to me on some level, so if anything I said came across as “caustic,” please try to read it with a more lighthearted tone, as I intended.
To add to @Marshall’s summary 
I think we all (or at least most of us) agree that the Bible and God’s Word and the Word of God are conventional English names for the canon that are not derived from Scripture.
When Scripture talks about the “word of God,” (which is an English translation and not what it says in the original manuscripts anyway) it is talking about God’s revealed message, decrees, authoritative statements, gospel, or some other communication that originated from God, including sometimes the collected Hebrew Scriptures.
To the extent that we as Christians view the canon as the inspired self-revelation and communication to humanity of what God wants us to know, I believe it is appropriate to designate it “God’s word” to us. I believe that when most Christians throughout history have referred to the entire collection of Scripture as “the word of God,” that is what they have been affirming. I don’t think it means or has traditionally meant that all of Scripture, (including Paul’s request for his cloak and papers), is a verbatim quote of something God said or was dictated by God. I don’t think it means or has traditionally meant the Bible is inerrant (especially since inerrancy as we know it is a modern construct, not a historic teaching of the church). It is a collective evaluation of the Scriptures and their intent as a whole to communicate to us God’s truth, not a statement meant to apply to any and all individual sentences found in “God’s Word.”
I respect everyone’s right to find the English convention of calling the Bible “the Word of God” personally distasteful and to make a personal decision never to use that name for the Bible. It is still a fact that it is a name for the Bible in English, and people will understand what you are referring to when you use it as a synonym for the Bible.
Though it has not been discussed that much here, I think most of us would agree the issues the Evangelical church has with biblicism and biblical literalism and using inerrancy as a litmus test are far more complex than simply using what some people think is a misnomer for the Bible. If we are going to talk about what is responsible for the “damage” to the church in the last century, you have to come up with something more nuanced and persuasive than “calling the Bible the Word of God.” Especially since calling the Bible the Word of God did not even start with Evangelicals and has been part of Christian speech conventions in English for centuries.
What I object to and will continue to object to as a moderator on this forum is people telling other people not to use the name God’s Word or Word of God, or telling other people what their use of the phrase “word of God” or the proper name Word of God instead of the Bible has to mean about their theology. I will continue to object to people insisting the Word of God only properly refers to Jesus.
And I think BioLogos will back me up because the new tagline is “God’s Word, God’s World,” in reference to the two books metaphor, Bible and Nature. (And it is even further evidence that God’s Word means Bible to English speakers.) If you don’t like that, you are free to flood the leadership’s inboxes with emails.
9 Likes
It was your personal decision to align yourself with and perpetuate the practice of the subset of Christians who call the Bible the “Word of God,” despite the fact that the term Word of God in the Bible does not refer to the Bible.
Just as you have made other choices only held by some but not all Christians, we made that choice.
You post implies that all Christians call the Bible the Word of God. I think you know that is not true.
My post implies no such thing. It asserts that most English speakers know that Word of God means Bible and understand that usage.
1 Like
You don’t think that implies that all English-speaking Christians call the Bible the Word of God?
It certainly looks that way to me.
If you agree some English speaking Christians do not call the Bible the Word of God, but you do, then how is it that don’t realize that you have aligned yourself with only a subset of English-speaking
Christians?
No. it implies English speakers generally would know what it means if another English speaker used it. For example, I know what all the major swear words in the English speaking community mean even though I don’t personally use them to communicate.
I actually don’t generally call the Bible the Word of God. I call it the Bible or Scripture. But I don’t think there is anything wrong with calling the Bible the Word of God and I understand perfectly well what others mean when they use the name. Because I speak English.
I believe that many ways we use language do show “alignment” with a group. But since the name ‘Word of God’ is used by Catholics, Mainline protestants, Southern Baptists, historically black denoms like the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Pentecostals, and even JWs, I don’t think it’s a very effective indicator of one’s alignment with any meaningful subset.
1 Like
I am sorry you can’t see the damage you do with this. Perhaps you will over time.
@03Cobra hilariously wrote: “I am sorry you can’t see the damage you do with this. Perhaps you will over time.”
It sure is hurting my eyes, but @Christy must think it will make me stronger.
1 Like
This is one strange thread. Words mean different things to different people at different times and are meaningful only if the parties involved have shared understanding. You can’t force your definition on someone else. In this cases Bible and Word of God, the context is obvious and most can understand the shared meaning.
I think I will go read a Good Book.
6 Likes
I work on a curriculum to teach nice Christian high schoolers that evolution and climate change are real. I’m used to being seen as doing damage. I’m pretty sure calling the Bible the Word of God is the least of my transgressions.
10 Likes
Ahh, but what is your definition of “good”?
Richard
2 Likes
Let alone a “Good” one? I’ve read a couple of really GOOD books this year, including All The Light We Cannot See. But if I referred to it as THE GOOD book there is little chance anyone would know to which I was referring. And, you know, I’d hate to be that guy.
3 Likes
I just find it a shame when discussions boil down to linguistics or definition. Don’t get me wrong, I love double meanings and entendres but only in an amusing or intellectual context, not as a basis for contention or “One upmanship”
Richard
1 Like
Thank you for your work
2 Likes
When it boils down to a disagreement in the meaning of the terms being used it is usually pretty easy to get past. But I’ve been getting a real education in linguistics here and it’s been an eye opener. Far subtler distinctions being made about basic conventions of language use. I now believe it is an important, even unavoidable, aspect to consider when examining people’s intentions behind the language they use. Hard to avoid misunderstanding others without it.
1 Like
Every time. Obviously. Because I would never want someone to think that I’m just talking about biology…
1 Like