On Interpretation of Scripture

[HumbleThinker]

The second internal evidence is the prophecies within the Bible. The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies relating to Israel, specific cities, and mankind in general. There are over 300 prophecies in the OT specifically detailed regarding Messiah – all of which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The only explanation is these prophecies were divine in their origin.

 

I believe this too, but what do the prophecies being divine in origin have to do with the Bible being the Word of God. Perhaps we are using the term differently? More on that below I'm sure.

 

When you say "The Bible is not the Word of God." What do you mean? That the Bible is not literally God speaking to people? That the Bible was not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

When i say the Bible is the Word of God I mean it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible words of God through various authors to humanity. It is how God reveals Himself.

And I think this semantic difference is indeed what is causing us to disagree. You seem to be generally using the all-encompassing placeholder usage of the phrase that I spoke about in the last post. When I say Word of God, I mean what John spoke of in the opening chapters of his Gospel. That which was with God and was God and is God, though which all things came into being. It is that which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Verse 8 almost perfectly encapsulates my position: "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." The Bible is a collection of those who testified about God, though neither they nor the Bible are God, and neither are they or the Bible the Word. The Bible is clearly none of these things despite being most or all of what you have been saying in the last two posts, which is why I think calling it the Word of God can be problematic even though it is a longstanding tradition. As you seemed to observe, I believe semantics is about all we disagree on as it pertains to this topic.

[Guest shiloh357]

That which was with God and was God and is God, though which all things came into being. It is that which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Verse 8 almost perfectly encapsulates my position: "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." The Bible is a collection of those who testified about God, though neither they nor the Bible are God, and neither are they or the Bible the Word.

 

The problem here is that John 1:8 isn't talking about Jesus.  It is talking about John the Baptist. 

 

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Joh 1:6-8

 

So your position is based ona mishandling of the text.  That's what happens when you quote verses while ignoring their context.  That's part of the rules of hermeneutics that you keep trying redefine or ignore. 

 

Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate while on earth?  I am not asking you if He was the Son of God.  I am asking you if you believe that Jesus was God and was co-existent with the Father before the earth was made.

[HumbleThinker]

HumbleThinker, you seem to not believe that the bible is the word of God. DO you see scripture as mans word? If so, how can you be sure you are saved and not following a lie?

Good question that I will answer in two parts. First, I do not feel the need to make the Bible the Word of God for it to be all the things people, particularly enoob57, are rightly claiming it to be. It is what it is, and no matter what it is, it is still the primary way of knowing about God, His spiritual works, and His spiritual purposes for us. It contains the words of God spoken directly to others and through His prophets and is profitable in many respects as it claims to be. Being the Word of God or not doesn't change this.

I see. You do not accept it as if God Himself wrote it, which we know He did not, but moved men to write it by the Holy Spirit. Do you see it as "second hand information"?

More precisely, I don't accept it as if it were that which was with God and was God in the beginning and became flesh in Jesus Christ. I guess I can see where second hand information might be acceptable, but it certainly wouldn't be my choice of words. I see nothing wrong with it simply being a text written by men who were inspired by God to testify to various spiritual truths to fulfill God's spiritual purpose because He so loved the world, etc. etc.

 

 

Second, I have for a long time found no need for 100% certainty, even in faith, and have found it fraught with problems. What I have, though, is 100% confidence that God exists, that we have a relationship, and that Christ is my Lord and Savior. Confidence is what is important because that, not certainty, is what leads to perseverance and a deeper relationship with God. I found that it leads me away from the still waters, while God was leading me towards them. So yes, this entire relationship of mine can be a huge case of self-delusion and taking an ancient religious text a little too seriously, but that's a risk I'm willing to take and I am 100% confident that I am not mistaken on this point.

Even Satan knows God is real. That is a very dangerous place to be in, not knowing if you are saved, just taking a chance. You need to make scripture personal to your walk in Him and not depend so much on your own understanding ... Proverbs 3:5-6

Everything has an element of chance in it. In terms of absolute objective certainty, no I don't know that I'm saved. But a relationship with God, like religion in general, isn't objective but subjective. It is a personal matter. And my personal, subjective experience grants my 100% confidence that I am saved. The only problem with invoking Proverbs 3:5 here is that in practical terms, it really only works in a vacuum, if I am the only person on the planet. But I'm not, and to communicate and receive guidance from others, including priests, requires that I be influenced by their understanding. So from my experience, the Proverb is absolutely true, but is more often than not misused so that someone subtly makes you depend on THEIR understanding instead of your own and most definitely instead of God's. You see what I mean?

[HumbleThinker]

That which was with God and was God and is God, though which all things came into being. It is that which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Verse 8 almost perfectly encapsulates my position: "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." The Bible is a collection of those who testified about God, though neither they nor the Bible are God, and neither are they or the Bible the Word.

The problem here is that John 1:8 isn't talking about Jesus.  It is talking about John the Baptist. 

 

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Joh 1:6-8

 

So your position is based ona mishandling of the text.  That's what happens when you quote verses while ignoring their context.  That's part of the rules of hermeneutics that you keep trying redefine or ignore. 

 

Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate while on earth?  I am not asking you if He was the Son of God.  I am asking you if you believe that Jesus was God and was co-existent with the Father before the earth was made.

We're clearly miscommunicating because I never said it was about Jesus. Verse 4 clearly states it's talking about John. If I were to say it were talking about Jesus, then this would be a completely different thread arguing against the Trinity. But I can see why you wold think that I thought it was talking about Jesus given that he was the closest male to the "he" at the beginning of verse 8 in my post. I was simply trying to compare John testifying about but not being the Light with the Bible containing the Word but not being the Word. Sorry for any confusion.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

That which was with God and was God and is God, though which all things came into being. It is that which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Verse 8 almost perfectly encapsulates my position: "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." The Bible is a collection of those who testified about God, though neither they nor the Bible are God, and neither are they or the Bible the Word.

The problem here is that John 1:8 isn't talking about Jesus.  It is talking about John the Baptist. 

 

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Joh 1:6-8

 

So your position is based ona mishandling of the text.  That's what happens when you quote verses while ignoring their context.  That's part of the rules of hermeneutics that you keep trying redefine or ignore. 

 

Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate while on earth?  I am not asking you if He was the Son of God.  I am asking you if you believe that Jesus was God and was co-existent with the Father before the earth was made.

 

We're clearly miscommunicating because I never said it was about Jesus. Verse 4 clearly states it's talking about John. If I were to say it were talking about Jesus, then this would be a completely different thread arguing against the Trinity. But I can see why you wold think that I thought it was talking about Jesus given that he was the closest male to the "he" at the beginning of verse 8 in my post. I was simply trying to compare John testifying about but not being the Light with the Bible containing the Word but not being the Word. Sorry for any confusion.

 

Okay, that's cool thanks for clearing that up.   But do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate?

[Guest ninhao]

 

And I think this semantic difference is indeed what is causing us to disagree. You seem to be generally using the all-encompassing placeholder usage of the phrase that I spoke about in the last post. When I say Word of God, I mean what John spoke of in the opening chapters of his Gospel. That which was with God and was God and is God, though which all things came into being. It is that which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Verse 8 almost perfectly encapsulates my position: "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." The Bible is a collection of those who testified about God, though neither they nor the Bible are God, and neither are they or the Bible the Word. The Bible is clearly none of these things despite being most or all of what you have been saying in the last two posts, which is why I think calling it the Word of God can be problematic even though it is a longstanding tradition. As you seemed to observe, I believe semantics is about all we disagree on as it pertains to this topic.

 

 

Hello HumbleThinker,

 

For my interest what do you say the word of God mentioned in Hebrews 4 is ?

 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 

[Guest]

Evolutionists do give evidence, but it is not convincing to me. 

 

I see it as the Bible gives us a 100 percent certainty the Genesis account of creation must be taken literal, and creation itself at best gives us a 30 percent chance evolution took place. 

 

Just looking at creation alone, I would say there is at least a 70  percent chance evolution is not true. 

 

If I didn't believe in God, the creation would show me that each creature began as it is today. 

 

Without a missing link, there is no evidence in the creation for evolution.

 

 

Despite The Many Strident And Desperate Claims To The Contrary

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

Evolution Is Never Observed In Science

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  Genesis 1:11-12

 

Nor Measured By Men

 

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

 

Nor Is It Repeated

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

So, Left Only With Science

 

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2 Peter 3:5

 

Where Can A Man Turn For Origins

 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

 

And Destinies

 

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. Revelation 21:4-5

 

~

 

Will A Rational Fellow Believe

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:19

 

Or Will He Choose To Hack God's Word

 

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

 

~

 

It Seems Such A Foundational Truth To Me

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

 

How About You?

 

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20

 

Love. Joe

[OneLight]

 

 

Second, I have for a long time found no need for 100% certainty, even in faith, and have found it fraught with problems. What I have, though, is 100% confidence that God exists, that we have a relationship, and that Christ is my Lord and Savior. Confidence is what is important because that, not certainty, is what leads to perseverance and a deeper relationship with God. I found that it leads me away from the still waters, while God was leading me towards them. So yes, this entire relationship of mine can be a huge case of self-delusion and taking an ancient religious text a little too seriously, but that's a risk I'm willing to take and I am 100% confident that I am not mistaken on this point.

Even Satan knows God is real. That is a very dangerous place to be in, not knowing if you are saved, just taking a chance. You need to make scripture personal to your walk in Him and not depend so much on your own understanding ... Proverbs 3:5-6

 

Everything has an element of chance in it. In terms of absolute objective certainty, no I don't know that I'm saved. But a relationship with God, like religion in general, isn't objective but subjective. It is a personal matter. And my personal, subjective experience grants my 100% confidence that I am saved. The only problem with invoking Proverbs 3:5 here is that in practical terms, it really only works in a vacuum, if I am the only person on the planet. But I'm not, and to communicate and receive guidance from others, including priests, requires that I be influenced by their understanding. So from my experience, the Proverb is absolutely true, but is more often than not misused so that someone subtly makes you depend on THEIR understanding instead of your own and most definitely instead of God's. You see what I mean?

 

Sorry, but I could not follow what you are trying to say. Proverbs 3:5-6 stated:

 

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,

And lean not on your own understanding;

In all your ways acknowledge Him,

And He shall direct your paths.

 

This scripture never tells us to lean on any other persons understanding, as you point to, but on Him and Him alone.

 

[HumbleThinker]

That which was with God and was God and is God, though which all things came into being. It is that which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Verse 8 almost perfectly encapsulates my position: "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." The Bible is a collection of those who testified about God, though neither they nor the Bible are God, and neither are they or the Bible the Word.

The problem here is that John 1:8 isn't talking about Jesus.  It is talking about John the Baptist. 

 

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Joh 1:6-8

 

So your position is based ona mishandling of the text.  That's what happens when you quote verses while ignoring their context.  That's part of the rules of hermeneutics that you keep trying redefine or ignore. 

 

Do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate while on earth?  I am not asking you if He was the Son of God.  I am asking you if you believe that Jesus was God and was co-existent with the Father before the earth was made.

We're clearly miscommunicating because I never said it was about Jesus. Verse 4 clearly states it's talking about John. If I were to say it were talking about Jesus, then this would be a completely different thread arguing against the Trinity. But I can see why you wold think that I thought it was talking about Jesus given that he was the closest male to the "he" at the beginning of verse 8 in my post. I was simply trying to compare John testifying about but not being the Light with the Bible containing the Word but not being the Word. Sorry for any confusion.

Okay, that's cool thanks for clearing that up.   But do you believe that Jesus was God incarnate?

Yes, and I'm presuming by implication you are asking if I believe in the Trinity, which is also yes.

[HumbleThinker]

And I think this semantic difference is indeed what is causing us to disagree. You seem to be generally using the all-encompassing placeholder usage of the phrase that I spoke about in the last post. When I say Word of God, I mean what John spoke of in the opening chapters of his Gospel. That which was with God and was God and is God, though which all things came into being. It is that which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Verse 8 almost perfectly encapsulates my position: "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." The Bible is a collection of those who testified about God, though neither they nor the Bible are God, and neither are they or the Bible the Word. The Bible is clearly none of these things despite being most or all of what you have been saying in the last two posts, which is why I think calling it the Word of God can be problematic even though it is a longstanding tradition. As you seemed to observe, I believe semantics is about all we disagree on as it pertains to this topic.

 

Hello HumbleThinker,

 

For my interest what do you say the word of God mentioned in Hebrews 4 is ?

 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Now these kinds of verses are what I think of when I think of someone trying to make a case for the Bible being the Word of God. It's verses like this where I can understand how many can feel confident in saying that the Bible is the Word of God and can concede the possibility that I am making a bigger deal out of it than is warranted. It is quite conceivable that it is speaking of Scripture since Paul is speaking of Old Testament Scripture here. Though Paul could also be specifically talking about the words God spoke since Paul is putting emphasis on God swearing and one hearing his voice earlier in the chapter. Personally, I would connect this with verses like Ephesians 6:17: "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Here it seems to be talking about some specific words, potentially from Scripture, that the Spirit prompts in us to defeat what is opposing us and not necessarily the Bible itself, though again I could be splitting hairs here. Or it could be talking about the Spirit itself, though I am not familiar with the Greek here or if the Spirit is referred to as the word of God in other portions of the Bible.