Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

The Bible and the Word of God

Well first, I'm not everyone. And Yes, they do know what you mean because in essence you're using the "cult vocabulary" of everyone here, not the vocabulary that is found in the actual manuscripts of the New Testament texts.

Y'all have your own little special terms and definitions that are unique to your religion. Terms that are applied TO the Bible, rather than being drawn from them. Don't expect me to use any personal lingo or parlance of yours that clutters up the themes that are found in the Bible.

Remember, you came at me with an accusation that needed to be addressed.

If you mean BIBLE, then say Bible, Charlie. But Bible and Word of God aren't the same thing. IN your Bible it talks about the Word of God, both the Word (LOGOS) of God and the Word (RHEMA) of God.

So which word am I reckless with? Explain your allegation or apologize. Am I reckless with the LOGOS of God or with the RHEMA of God?

Let me know, and I'll address your concern,
Kindly,
Rhema

Of course the Scripture speaks of the Written Word and the Living Word. The context determines which.

I'm short on apologies today!

Everyone knows what I'm talking about when I say "the Word of God." It seems only you have difficulty with it in the context in which I use it.

My Lord, but it's depressing to have conversation with you, Rhema!

You keep moving the goal posts and intentionally!
 
If anyone comes here and reads your posts, will their faith in the Bible be strengthened?
Why should the faith of anyone be placed in the Bible?

Our faith should be placed in God. The living God. The God who desires to speak to us all directly. The God who desires to place His Word in our heart - a thing that is done quite apart from the Bible (any Bible). Did the three thousand saved on the day of Pentecost have "The Bible"? Of course not. So what saved them?

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.​
(Acts 2:36-38 NKJV)

The Holy Spirit did. The Holy Spirit saved them through the proclamation of Peter - (did he need a book?)

For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."​
(Luke 12:12 NKJV)

Part of my ministry is to restore people's faith in God and His Son Jesus, after their faith in the Bible has failed. (And it will, once someone really starts to study it.)

If the gospel you preach to others is "Believe the Bible" instead of "Believe that one's sins may be Forgiven by following the teachings of Christ contained in the Bible as a testimony," then the person who believes in this Bible has already been set up to fail.

To believe (and worse) to preach that the Bible IS the Word of God, rather than the New Testament texts contain the Word of God, is to create confusion right off the bat.

BUT... it would seem that the Statement of Faith embraced by this forum prohibits any discussion that would raise questions about the Bible itself, so the most I can do is say that of the current active members, I submit that I happen to be the person here who has the most respect for the scriptures, since none other has taken the time to learn the language in which they were written, or spent the effort and energy to understand how the canon developed, and indeed the history of Christendom itself without turning apostate.

Ok, Rhema, you have doubt in the Scripture, we see that everyday in your posts!
It would be better to say that I doubt certain portions of what others call scripture. I doubt the blind belief that the modern day American Christian espouses. I doubt the definitional framework and the misinterpretations that get posted by people who think they understand without having done their due diligence to seek and study.

If you insist on being negative toward Scripture then have at it.

That's between you and the Lord.
And it's between you and the Lord when you misrepresent His Gospel by failing to really challenge the presuppositions and the doctrines you embrace and preach to others. And this measure I apply to myself, which is why I conclude that the Bible is Not the Word of God, but contains the Word(message) of God that He would have all people embrace.

Kindly,
Rhema



(So am I reckless with the LOGOS or the RHEMA ??)
 
Why should the faith of anyone be placed in the Bible?

Our faith should be placed in God. The living God. The God who desires to speak to us all directly. The God who desires to place His Word in our heart - a thing that is done quite apart from the Bible (any Bible). Did the three thousand saved on the day of Pentecost have "The Bible"? Of course not. So what saved them?

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.​
(Acts 2:36-38 NKJV)

The Holy Spirit did. The Holy Spirit saved them through the proclamation of Peter - (did he need a book?)

For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."​
(Luke 12:12 NKJV)

Part of my ministry is to restore people's faith in God and His Son Jesus, after their faith in the Bible has failed. (And it will, once someone really starts to study it.)

If the gospel you preach to others is "Believe the Bible" instead of "Believe that one's sins may be Forgiven by following the teachings of Christ contained in the Bible as a testimony," then the person who believes in this Bible has already been set up to fail.

To believe (and worse) to preach that the Bible IS the Word of God, rather than the New Testament texts contain the Word of God, is to create confusion right off the bat.

BUT... it would seem that the Statement of Faith embraced by this forum prohibits any discussion that would raise questions about the Bible itself, so the most I can do is say that of the current active members, I submit that I happen to be the person here who has the most respect for the scriptures, since none other has taken the time to learn the language in which they were written, or spent the effort and energy to understand how the canon developed, and indeed the history of Christendom itself without turning apostate.


It would be better to say that I doubt certain portions of what others call scripture. I doubt the blind belief that the modern day American Christian espouses. I doubt the definitional framework and the misinterpretations that get posted by people who think they understand without having done their due diligence to seek and study.


And it's between you and the Lord when you misrepresent His Gospel by failing to really challenge the presuppositions and the doctrines you embrace and preach to others. And this measure I apply to myself, which is why I conclude that the Bible is Not the Word of God, but contains the Word(message) of God that He would have all people embrace.

Kindly,
Rhema



(So am I reckless with the LOGOS or the RHEMA ??)

LOL
 
Lines get drawn, and righteous indignation comes to the surface
Righteous indignation is not righteous... :rolleyes:

And yet is it not common in everyone? (A thing from which we all must be saved.)

Please, just don't let it get to the place that making a point is more important than the love you have and show in word/deed to another who in most cases are followers of Jesus Christ just as you are.
When Martin Luther changed the basis of salvation from the obedience of love towards one another to Being Right in matters of doctrine and faith, (although one might even say that Paul did this) such infighting became a forgone conclusion. If one is not RIGHT, then one's salvation is too readily called into question.

It doesn't quite help that the purpose of a forum such as this is to discuss what is "right." (It's not like we can all get together for pot luck and game night.)

That said, there are certain brothers here that strive to help one grow in how our words are to be written to others. And I am grateful for that (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE... :) )


Rhema,
"In peace let us pray to the Lord,
Lord have mercy...."
 
Of course the Scripture speaks of the Written Word and the Living Word. The context determines which.
Where?

Where in scripture is found the phrase "the Written Word" ??

Should we make up terms that cannot be found in scripture?

I'm short on apologies today!
It matters not. None need be given me. (And I just got to reading this post.)

Everyone knows what I'm talking about when I say "the Word of God." It seems only you have difficulty with it in the context in which I use it.
Yes. Because if one equates the "Word of God" with "Bible," then one truly cannot see what the Bible has to say about the Word of God (either of the two).

Unless we correct bad thinking, we shall always be held captive by bad teaching and unable to go further into the Word (and I don't mean Bible).

My Lord, but it's depressing to have conversation with you, Rhema!
There is the LOGOS and the RHEMA. Those are the Word of God. If the teaching helps you, you are blessed. If not, may the Holy Spirit guide your path. But ask yourself what depresses the Lord.

Kindly,
Rhema

You keep moving the goal posts and intentionally!
??? I have not changed my position one wit, kind sir. Be blessed.
 
Where?

Where in scripture is found the phrase "the Written Word" ??

Should we make up terms that cannot be found in scripture?


It matters not. None need be given me. (And I just got to reading this post.)


Yes. Because if one equates the "Word of God" with "Bible," then one truly cannot see what the Bible has to say about the Word of God (either of the two).

Unless we correct bad thinking, we shall always be held captive by bad teaching and unable to go further into the Word (and I don't mean Bible).


There is the LOGOS and the RHEMA. Those are the Word of God. If the teaching helps you, you are blessed. If not, may the Holy Spirit guide your path. But ask yourself what depresses the Lord.

Kindly,
Rhema


??? I have not changed my position one wit, kind sir. Be blessed.

I'm sorry, Rhema, I don't mean to be rude, but every conversation with you makes me feel that I've entered into the Twilight Zone.

It seems you can't comprehend the simple things in Scripture, everything is complicated for you.

The phrase "The Written Word" and "The Living Word" are the same concept as "The Rapture" and "The Trinity" that are also not found in Scripture. They are labels to identify the subject matter in communication.

For example, John plainly tells us that Christ is the Word, the Eternal Logos, in other words "The Living Word."

In John 5:39-40 we have the Living Word pointing to the Written Word.

"Search the scriptures (The Written Word); for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

And ye will not come to me (The Living Word), that ye might have life."
 
I think not!
Then You have not met anyone who questions what they read.

A scholar of high repute, Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, has undertaken the prestigious endeavor of compiling a high resolution digital library containing each and every fragment of any New Testament manuscript ever found.
If this is freely available, and it should have been, 2 decades ago.. then it will be a gold mine.

If anyone comes here and reads your posts, will their faith in the Bible be strengthened

My wife would greatly benefit. She taught herself greek to try and figure out a lot of things out.

The esv translators in her opinion, hate women, omitting the sins of the patriarchs while painting the women in a worse light than the hebrew.. at best, implies.
 
And what about adding in words? What about taking two Greek words and con-fusing them together by using a single English word in translation?


You may wish to familiarize yourself with the study of Textual Criticism. (But God forbid that KJ admits he doesn't know something. ;) )

A scholar of high repute, Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, has undertaken the prestigious endeavor of compiling a high resolution digital library containing each and every fragment of any New Testament manuscript ever found.


@KingJ, as the original manuscripts were copied, and copies made of the copies, and then copies of copies of copies, made, did your "God's helping hand" keep mistakes from being made? Of course not. One can place two ancient manuscripts side by side and literally see the differences that are called "variants." Sometimes words are misspelled. Sometimes words are left out. And sometimes words are put in.

So when you are looking at two manuscripts side by side, and there is a variant, which one is the right one? Guess what? YOU can't tell.

Even Jeremiah was outraged that the scribes (the copyists) altered the TORAH. Was Jeremiah wrong?

How can you say, "We are wise, and the TORAH of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?​
(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV)

So yes, God's hand WAS present, by having His prophet declare that the scriptures were meddled with. The thing is, God's hand doesn't necessarily move the way YOU want it to.

Kindly,
Rhema

"@KingJ, as the original manuscripts were copied, and copies made of the copies, and then copies of copies of copies, made, did your "God's helping hand" keep mistakes from being made? Of course not. One can place two ancient manuscripts side by side and literally see the differences that are called "variants." Sometimes words are misspelled. Sometimes words are left out. And sometimes words are put in.

So when you are looking at two manuscripts side by side, and there is a variant, which one is the right one? Guess what? YOU can't tell.

Even Jeremiah was outraged that the scribes (the copyists) altered the TORAH. Was Jeremiah wrong?

How can you say, "We are wise, and the TORAH of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?
(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV)

So yes, God's hand WAS present, by having His prophet declare that the scriptures were meddled with. The thing is, God's hand doesn't necessarily move the way YOU wa
@KingJ, as the original manuscripts were copied, and copies made of the copies, and then copies of copies of copies, made, did your "God's helping hand" keep mistakes from being made? Of course not. One can place two ancient manuscripts side by side and literally see the differences that are called "variants." Sometimes words are misspelled. Sometimes words are left out. And sometimes words are put in.

So when you are looking at two manuscripts side by side, and there is a variant, which one is the right one? Guess what? YOU can't tell.

Even Jeremiah was outraged that the scribes (the copyists) altered the TORAH. Was Jeremiah wrong?

How can you say, "We are wise, and the TORAH of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?
(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV)

So yes, God's hand WAS present, by having His prophet declare that the scriptures were meddled with. The thing is, God's hand doesn't necessarily move the way YOU want it to.
nt it to."


Something really amazing concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls is how similar the scripture still is after all these years to what were written in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 
Then You have not met anyone who questions what they read.


If this is freely available, and it should have been, 2 decades ago.. then it will be a gold mine.



My wife would greatly benefit. She taught herself greek to try and figure out a lot of things out.

The esv translators in her opinion, hate women, omitting the sins of the patriarchs while painting the women in a worse light than the hebrew.. at best, implies.

I have my opinions and I respect the opinions of others.
 
Then You have not met anyone who questions what they read.


If this is freely available, and it should have been, 2 decades ago.. then it will be a gold mine.



My wife would greatly benefit. She taught herself greek to try and figure out a lot of things out.

The esv translators in her opinion, hate women, omitting the sins of the patriarchs while painting the women in a worse light than the hebrew.. at best, implies.
You kind of forget or forget to take into consideration the concepts of the time.

If you look at the Muslim culture of today. Look at the way women are viewed. Second class citizen and not allowed to be at the mosque. And yet this is acceptable thinking even among Muslim women of the Middle East. Even if you go to Dearborn Michigan you'll see the same thinking going on all the time. You'll see the men dressed as Americans but the women are completely covered up you know hiding their faces for the most part.

In the Greek culture women were less than the men. And so it would stand to reason that the language would come across in the same concept.

As an example the scripture is really difficult to translate when it's written in Greek because the Greeks didn't really have a differentiation between the first person family and the second cousin and the third cousin Etc it was just all considered first person family. You could ask your wife on that
 
You kind of forget or forget to take into consideration the concepts of the time.

If you look at the Muslim culture of today. Look at the way women are viewed. Second class citizen and not allowed to be at the mosque. And yet this is acceptable thinking even among Muslim women of the Middle East. Even if you go to Dearborn Michigan you'll see the same thinking going on all the time. You'll see the men dressed as Americans but the women are completely covered up you know hiding their faces for the most part.

In the Greek culture women were less than the men. And so it would stand to reason that the language would come across in the same concept.

As an example the scripture is really difficult to translate when it's written in Greek because the Greeks didn't really have a differentiation between the first person family and the second cousin and the third cousin Etc it was just all considered first person family. You could ask your wife on that

Wow, thanks for sharing some wisdom there. Interesting!
 
Something i thought about yesterday. Some conversation about Trump not serving God because he isn't Christian.

Whoever says God can not use people who are not Christian? Plus it isn't up to us to figure out God's plans.

Let us think about this. If the pharaoh never hardend his heart, there would be no Moses. God did not cause the pharaoh's heart to be hardend, but God used it for His purpose. Eventually bringing the 10 Commandments.

And scripture tells us about how God used Nebuchadnezzar to be the whip of God.
 
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
 
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Exactly, he was casting out demons in the name of Jesus. Because he believed in Jesus although he was not with the apostles or a disciple directly related with Jesus at that moment.
 
Righteous indignation is not righteous... :rolleyes:
That is why I used the term, to make my point.
Glad you agree. :)
And yet is it not common in everyone? (A thing from which we all must be saved.)
Are you asking this because you actually didn't understand my usage of it, or because you don't agree with how I used it? However, I do agree with you that it is something we need to be saved from! :)

When Martin Luther changed the basis of salvation from the obedience of love towards one another to Being Right in matters of doctrine and faith, (although one might even say that Paul did this) such infighting became a forgone conclusion. If one is not RIGHT, then one's salvation is too readily called into question.
I'm sure ML saw it differently, but you can't change what you don't have the authority to, try as you might and regardless of who follows you.
It doesn't quite help that the purpose of a forum such as this is to discuss what is "right." (It's not like we can all get together for pot luck and game night.)
You'd have to ask Brother Chad the why's on starting this site, but rather than "right", dare I say "truth" instead, which is probably just as troublesome when people gather to converse on Scripture or just about any subject! :rolleyes:
That said, there are certain brothers here that strive to help one grow in how our words are to be written to others. And I am grateful for that (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE... :) )
Of course, with good intention overlooked, they usually get crucified for making the attempt. :)

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
 
The phrase "The Written Word" and "The Living Word" are the same concept as "The Rapture" and "The Trinity" that are also not found in Scripture. They are labels to identify the subject matter in communication.
Yes, these are made up fictions. That's why fictional labels are necessary, and why they are not found in the actual writings (aka "Scripture").

.... every conversation with you makes me feel that I've entered into the Twilight Zone.
Actually, the conversations I have are designed to make one look around in order to see that indeed one might already be in the Twilight Zone of a particular religious mindset. The reason you feel this way is that I don't live in that Twilight Zone as you, and hold most everyone with whom I talk to the rigors of a logical Definitional Framework that is readily supported by both scripture and a Lexical Foundation. So to those who are already in a Twilight Zone, it looks like I have arrived from one. Indeed I merely hope to help that person to see the Twilight Zone in which they already live.

You have heard it said that there are none so blind as those who will not see, but I say unto you there are none so blind as those who are already absolutely convinced that they see.

However, unlike Jesus, it's not my intention to purposefully impose a sense of exasperation upon anyone. And my apologies for that (unless, of course, that's the intention of the Holy Spirit). Perhaps we might consider it collateral damage? Or unintended consequences? A "rough spot" in ... Getting to know you... Getting to know all about you.... (it's easier to break into song when in person).

I'm sorry, Rhema, I don't mean to be rude,
I can assure you, it wasn't taken that way. But every Jew around Jesus felt like that, because there are innumerable "verses" that state they were astonished at what Jesus taught. Verses like this one at the end of what you know as The Sermon on the Mount:

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:​
(Matthew 7:28 KJV)

But there are certain constraints at this forum that don't allow me to be openly astonishing, so I can hint, suggest, post a scripture here and there, so that one who seeks can put the pieces parts together (hopefully) for themselves, as God leads. That said, I am open to a Nicodemus moment if need be.

For example, John plainly tells us that Christ is the Word, the Eternal Logos, in other words "The Living Word."
And therein lies the problem - when one goes beyond what is written and leaps over into "other words," creating new terms that invent doctrines that are not written. I'd give examples, but you've already touched on a few, one of which is that when Jesus (JESUS) taught about the end of the world he said that those who disappear off the face of the earth are those who do iniquity. (cf. LINK to my other thread - also, I hadn't expected my time to be so limited this weekend, but I'll address the outstanding posts over there as soon as I can.)

You see I don't "do" church. And I don't do "church-speak." I am not part of any denomination, and you can fell the frustration that that causes. Which brings me back to my first point. Churches are an ecosystem of special terms and definitions (possibly even delusions) that are poisonous to actual truth, whether these fabricate specific doctrines, or certain behaviours (such as the plagiarism of backNforth that just doesn't seem to bother him).

Ought I to let things like that slide? Or sweep things under the proverbial rug in order to maintain a fiction of smiling happy faces all singing Kum-ba-yah because someone scared them about "unity" somehow ??

I was first excommunicated from my parents church when I was 17 (there have been about twelve so far) because I had the GALL !!! (the PRIDE !!! the TEMERITY) of using a Greek Interlinear to study the New Testament writings and SPURN the elders' clear teaching from GOD that one should only use the King James Version (( that, and I attended a non-church approved university )). I think they were angered because I was openly using the Greek text for three years and they completely missed it.

When scripture says that God is not a respecter of persons, it means that he holds everyone's feet to the fire equally. I tend to do that. (Not the least of whom is myself.) Although.... @Br. Bear has been patiently guiding me to realize that I can set people's feet on fire in a more gentile and kindly manner. :innocent: (And I guess I should say that Nick is doing his best to help, when I'm not exasperating him.)

For example, John plainly tells us that Christ is the Word, the Eternal Logos,
Why? What's so special or significant about that? What is LOGOS all about? One needs to read Philo to find out.

"Search the scriptures (The Written Word);
My point is when people make up these Fake Terms, like the "Written Word" they damage the Definitional Framework of their own writings. There is no GRAPHO LOGOS, and certainly not any GRAPHO RHEMA.

You want to be angry and incensed? Don't direct that at me. I'm not the Satan that gives twisted translations that conform to the theological bias of the ones doing the translations and the denominations paying them. I'm not the one who fused LOGOS and RHEMA together, con-fusing the handicapped English-only readers who just see "Word of God". And then they can't even see what the Bibles says is the Word of God because their brainwashed screamings keep making them think BIBLE.

Now far be it from me to say that the LOGOS of God is not Jesus. Because I do. I do say that the LOGOS of God is Jesus. But we have clear text written in Greek that says the RHEMA of God is the Holy Spirit. We have clear text that says the Word of God is the Holy Spirit (although the text states RHEMA, not LOGOS at that point).

IS the Bible the Word of God? No. But the Bible does contain the Word of God, so let the Bible TELL you what the Word of God is, knowing that that there are two of them. The RHEMA(word)-of-God and the LOGOS(word)-of-God. And when one learns the truth about the LOGOS and the RHEMA, one can see that the Bible doesn't call ITSELF the Word of God. Fake Doctrines do. People indoctrinated with Fake Doctrines do. Fake Doctrines that are built on "Churchisms" - an ecosystem of religious terms created on purpose to keep people blind. Did you even know RHEMA existed before me? (Most don't.) Is it important? Find out.

No man also having drunk old wine (their dearly held church-words) straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.​
(Luke 5:39 KJV)

It seems you can't comprehend the simple things in Scripture, everything is complicated for you.
To which I would say, you're not reading scripture. You're reading a translation. A translation that turns into Church Fictions, because your Church has defined the terms you read, disregarding the language in which it was written.

But when I set myself to seek what is actually written and what is actually meant, an entirely new panorama - an astonishing panorama reveals itself. It's not complicated, except to those who are set in the old church ways. But who wants to come out of their Twilight Zone when it's the same thing as their Comfort Zone.

In God's peace,
Rhema
 
If this is freely available, and it should have been, 2 decades ago.. then it will be a gold mine.

It even led Wallace (of all people) to actually conclude that the true number is 616 and the variant error is 666. (For whatever that's worth.)

My wife would greatly benefit. She taught herself greek to try and figure out a lot of things out.
Uh... I am humbled and speechless. Perhaps I'm not as alone as I think.

The esv translators in her opinion, hate women, omitting the sins of the patriarchs while painting the women in a worse light than the hebrew.. at best, implies.
YIKES... I've not really spent the time to look at all these new fangled translations. It was enough back in the seventies to see that the NIV did not conform to the Greek Interlinear and exposed itself to be as much a cultic translation as the NWT of the JWs.

Those flying a 747 (that expensive software called "Logos") might laugh at the small dinky biplane I use (e-sword.net), but...

@joestue, has your wife ever run into Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament? I can get lost in that for hours.

Send me a PM if you want to talk tools and resources.

Kindly,
Rhema
 
Back
Top