Is the Word of God vs. Contains the Word of God

[forrestkc]

Is the Word of God vs. Contains the Word of God

It seems that there are two camps here. The first camp says that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God from the first word in it to the last and the only variations there is are variations in translation.

The second camp says that the Bible contains the divinely inspired word of God, but that its possible and or likely that parts of it may have human additions.

Now, I used to fall completely into the first camp, but I leaning more towards the second camp. The reason being is that usually on the way to and from work I catch up on the days news by tuning into NPR. Well recently I was listening to the Diane Rhem show and she had a guest who held a doctorate in Theology and Greek if I am not mistaken and who had written a book on this subject. Unfortunately I cannot think of the name of the book. Anyway, the guest had started out life as a born again very conservative evangelical Christian. He was a firm believe that the Bible was the Word of God. He went to an evangelical college, obtained a degree in theology. Then later on went back to school to study Greek. At that point he really got into studying the older manuscripts and he said that he noticed the following:

1. That there were great variations in the wording between the earliest manuscripts that we have. He said that this of course makes sense as at the time there was no printed press and scribes simply had to hand write everything and this was done in different areas across the ancient world where Christianity had spread. In fact, he said that there are more variations in wording between the older manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

2. He said that there are stories and accounts that appear in later manuscripts that do not appear in the earlier manuscripts. The example that sticks out in my mind is the story in the Gospel of John where the Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought a woman charged with adultery before him. Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied,

[Guest NewPilgrim]

by trusting God. Whatever the case may be in early manuscripts etc.. the fact is, that God has seen fit to allow us to see the bible as it is today in its various forms and use our insight and his guidance to seek the truth. The truth is in the bible because God has allowed it. While every dot and cross may not be the same in each version, the Spirit of Gods Word is always present in his fulness of form

[jmwhalen]

1. Truth: an exact and faithful expression of the facts; the standard by which to judge all else; final authority.

The LORD God is the source of the truth: God the Father is the truth(Psalms 31:5); The Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ is the truth(Jn. 14:6); God the Holy Ghost is the truth(Jn. 14:7).

Only an absolute authority can provide absolute truth; all other truth is relative and changeable(Psalms 119:128).

I "take God at His word"-the simple defintiion of faith. He inspired it(2 Tim. 3:16), He preserved it, and it is without error,

in "5th grade English." Scripture repeatedly declares that it is the source of truth, as it is written:

"... Thy word is true from the beginning:

[forrestkc]

by trusting God. Whatever the case may be in early manuscripts etc.. the fact is, that God has seen fit to allow us to see the bible as it is today in its various forms and use our insight and his guidance to seek the truth. The truth is in the bible because God has allowed it. While every dot and cross may not be the same in each version, the Spirit of Gods Word is always present in his fulness of form

Well, my problem is, it would seem that if something was not in the early manuscripts and after some time found its way into the later manuscripts, that man put it there, not God. I mean I guess what I am saying is that I am a C.S. Lewis type Christian. I have got to reason my way towards all my beliefs. So that

Edited December 20, 2005 by forrestkc

[apothanein kerdos]

It's honestly sad that such a man can hold such a degree and still hold a novice understanding of the way things work.

That there were great variations in the wording between the earliest manuscripts that we have. He said that this of course makes sense as at the time there was no printed press and scribes simply had to hand write everything and this was done in different areas across the ancient world where Christianity had spread. In fact, he said that there are more variations in wording between the older manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

The variations are often grammatical differences (as Greek has many grammar rules), spelling differences, and if word choice is a difference the meaning generally stays the same. To add to this, when two words are in an actual conflict, we generally look to the majority texts to see what the majority of scribes copied.

2. He said that there are stories and accounts that appear in later manuscripts that do not appear in the earlier manuscripts. The example that sticks out in my mind is the story in the Gospel of John where the Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought a woman charged with adultery before him. Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied,

[jmwhalen]

by trusting God. Whatever the case may be in early manuscripts etc.. the fact is, that God has seen fit to allow us to see the bible as it is today in its various forms and use our insight and his guidance to seek the truth. The truth is in the bible because God has allowed it. While every dot and cross may not be the same in each version, the Spirit of Gods Word is always present in his fulness of form

Well, my problem is, it would seem that if something was not in the early manuscripts and after some time found its way into the later manuscripts, that man put it there, not God. I mean I guess what I am saying is that I am a C.S. Lewis type Christian. I have got to reason my way towards all my beliefs. So that

[Khristeeanos]

To me, if we only accept that the Bible contains parts of the Word of God, than how do we know which to accept and which to reject?

It leads to people believing anything they wish.

There must be a set, definite way of determing the truth and that is Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21.

As far as I am concerned, it is all or nothing.

[apothanein kerdos]

To me, if we only accept that the Bible contains parts of the Word of God, than how do we know which to accept and which to reject?

It leads to people believing anything they wish.

There must be a set, definite way of determing the truth and that is Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21.

As far as I am concerned, it is all or nothing.

Exactly, it becomes post-modern Christianity. It's nothing more than, "I believe this so I accept this."