Bible Study The Word of God.

[Cornelius]

First lets be clear : The Word of God is the Bible. That is what is referred to when the Bible refers to itself as the Word. The Bible is one manifestation of the Word It is the written form of the Word.

The Word has many other names . Here are a few of them: the law of Jehovah. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies,They walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded us thy precepts, To observe thy statutes! When I have respect unto all thy commandments.
When I learn thy righteous judgments. I will observe thy statutes: By taking heed thereto according to thy word. With my lips have I declared All the ordinances of thy mouth.


Act 7:38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us:


Rom 3:2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.

Heb 5:12 For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food.

1Pe 4:11 if any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God; if any man ministereth, ministering as of the strength which God supplieth: that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Cornelius]

Jesus and the Apostles also referred to the Word as " as it is written"

1Co 2:9 but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.

Mat 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Mat 11:10 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mat 21:13 and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.

Mat 26:24 The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born.

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Mar 7:6 And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me.

Mar 9:13 But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would, even as it is written of him.


There are many more examples

 

[Cornelius]

Anybody serious about serving God will see that the Word has been the guide in the lives of the saints. Jesus Himself moved in the Word ; He WAS the Word made flesh.
Here Paul submits to the Word, because "it is written" :
Act 23:5 And Paul said, I knew not, brethren, that he was high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.

Here doctrine is established through what is written :

Rom 1:17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.

Here the decision to replace Judas is made on grounds that the Word foretold it.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.

Preaching the gospel and confirming it from the Word :

Act 13:32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers,
Act 13:33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

 

[Cornelius]

So what about the New Testament ? Is that the Word of God too ? Those words delivered by the first apostles, were they speaking the Word of God?

1Th 2:13 And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.

So that settles it. The old and the new both are the Word of God.

 

[Cornelius]

When the Word was delivered through the writers of the New Testament. How many times was something legally allowed to be added to the Word ? For instance, could we add a tradition to what has been written and call it godly. Once ? Twice ? How many time were the final gospel delivered to us ?

Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.

Once ! And it was delivered for who? For all. That includes you and I.

The gospel was delivered ONCE for ALL. Then men started adding to it until our day. But we are told to contend , which means to strive in opposition or against difficulties, to get back to that pure message before men added to it.

Contend to get back to the faith which was once delivered for all.

 

[Cornelius]

Ask yourself this question : "Why are we being told to strive to get back to the original message of the gospel, if it is not necessary ?"

Do you think it necessary to get back to the original form of the gospel ?

 

[Cornelius]

2Sa 22:31 As for God, his way is perfect: The word of Jehovah is tried; He is a shield unto all them that take refuge in him.

Psa 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: The word of Jehovah is tried; He is a shield unto all them that take refuge in him.

Psa 12:6 The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times.

Seven the number of perfection.

 

[Cornelius]

Rev 22:7 And behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.

Rev 22:18 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

Is this speaking only of the book of Revelation ? Of course not.This is the end of the whole book of Prophecy. If we change the meaning of what God wrote in the Bible by adding anything to it and by leaving something out , we change the meaning of the gospel . We make the power void. We add our words to the Word of God That will bring a curse upon us and make us loose our eternal life.

The Word IS eternal life and when we change it, it no longer it life : ... the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life. Joh 6:63 Jesus is eternal life : Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: ...Joh 11:25 He is eternal life because He is the Word of God...that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life 1Jn 1:1
(and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); 1Jn 1:2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:1

 

[Cornelius]

I am not going to go into this aspect here now, but here is a link that proves the Bible scientifically to be the Word of God. It also proves that EVERY word in the original text must be in the Bible and that we cannot add, nor subtract even one word, without this scientific proof falling down.

LINK

 

[Nathan]

So what about the New Testament ? Is that the Word of God too ? Those words delivered by the first apostles, were they speaking the Word of God?

1Th 2:13 And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.

So that settles it. The old and the new both are the Word of God.

I want to first and foremost say I really like how well this is post was put together. I think a lot of inspiration was involved.

I was personally in complete agreement and thrilled to read the thoughts till I came up on this one. It just caught me off guard because it seemed to be the first thing that was taken out of context, as I see it. I am not debating the thought process, but rather wanting to let you know what I think so that you might be able to better respond to some questions.

Paul here talks about them receiving the 'word of the message'. He also went on to proclaim that it indeed was the word of God, but in context do you not think that Paul is specifically talking about the gospel? I think personally that it takes away from the significance of what the Gospel is when we try to attribute other things to its simplicity.

I am NOT saying that the NT is not inspired by God and infallible. I think it is. But I am just wondering if you have any more evidence to back up the thought that Paul considered the 'writings' of the NT as the Word of God?

I think that you post a most excellent assertion that we should return to the original Gospel and contend earnestly for it, even as Jude stated we should. And again, not in a debating way am I saying this, but don't you think that the Gospel is the Gospel, and the teachings of Christ are the teachings of Christ? They are separate, but yet linked together in truth.

I understand that the "Gospel" is the "Good news". But then the question is, 'Good news of what?'. To that I would reply, 'The Good news of our Salvation'. Our Salvation is none other than Jesus the Christ. Now, Jesus also taught us, through the magnification of the law, how we should live 'soberly' in this present time. However, Jude was concerned for the faith that was once and all delivered to us ALL(as you so wonderfully stated).

Faith is based on the Word of God, not the teaching of man. To base a persons faith on what the NT says would be to detract from what the Word of God says. Does it matter? In some ways I do not think so, but then in some ways I do. I will never deny the infallible nature of the NT. But we have also seen how throughout times past it has almost 'replaced' the OT for its predominance. To the point where we 'believe' the OT as the Word of God, but we also think it should not be taken "literal".

However, the NT should be taken 'literal'....at least in some places....some would say. And how I see it, is that the NT is simply a magnification of the OT. The disciples and early believers did not have the NT. They had the OT.

Here is the point I am getting to; When we put so high a tag on the NT as it stands, then we have to take away from the OT as it stands. Why? Because by the very way we describe them, "Old" versus "New". I use the terminology, personally, only as a reference to the different parts of the Bible. But somewhere along the way it was "deemed" as such, and no one questions why. But the NT has subconsciously taken the place of the OT in peoples minds.

Does this make sense?

 

[Nathan]

Rev 22:7 And behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.

Rev 22:18 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

Is this speaking only of the book of Revelation ? Of course not.This is the end of the whole book of Prophecy. If we change the meaning of what God wrote in the Bible by adding anything to it and by leaving something out , we change the meaning of the gospel . We make the power void. We add our words to the Word of God That will bring a curse upon us and make us loose our eternal life.

The Word IS eternal life and when we change it, it no longer it life : ... the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life. Joh 6:63 Jesus is eternal life : Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: ...Joh 11:25 He is eternal life because He is the Word of God...that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life 1Jn 1:1
(and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); 1Jn 1:2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:1

I am not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way. So please do not regard this as condescending or debateful in nature. I am very aware of the rules that govern this site, and wish to respect them.

However, you bring up a long time debated thought, that I believe can be defined indefinitely in and of its own self. The idea that when at the end of Revelation it tells of the "book", that it is speaking of the Bible as a whole.

How do we come to the assumption that it does? What brought us to that point? Because as I am aware, there are a multitude of different Bibles out there. Some include some "books", some don't. You state the truth when we should consider it infallible in its original language. But there are many "books" that were either included or not in their original language.

So my question is, if there is a "book" that was left out does it then bring the condemnation of Revelation? And if there was a "book" added? So then we have to go back to who decided what "books" should be included and what should not. See where this can be very complicated? And the complication seems to only 'muddy' the waters.

When on the other hand, if you are to take it in its context and apply it to the "book" of prophecy, otherwise known as Revelation, then it does not raise doubts in peoples minds about the infallible Bible we have today.

There is no doubt, that many ancient Hebrew texts, contained much more writings than what we have today 2000 years later. And there is no doubt that there were many discussions that arose over the compiling of the NT.

Again. If you were just intending this for a blog and not discussion then by all means ask a moderator to remove my posts. But if there can be civil discussion that can ensue without debate, I would love to talk about this. I hope this makes sense.

 

[Elijah674]

A quote:
'When on the other hand, if you are to take it in its context and apply it to the "book" of prophecy, otherwise known as Revelation, then it does not raise doubts in peoples minds about the infallible Bible we have today.'

Rev.
[17] And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
(This surely cannot only apply to Rev. And the rest of the [Rev. 14:6 Everlasting Gospel] means only the Rev. book! Hardly, as 'i' see it!)

[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(nor does that have anything to do with God's reply to Moses?? Exod. 32:33 'Whosoever hath sinned against Me, [HIM WILL I BLOT OUT OF MY BOOK.]' Some will no doubt want to get ride of this Truth as well, huh?SICK!
[20] He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

And nothing New Under the sun?? Eccl. 3:15. And here some use for prophecy one book that uninspired man even classified & divided up with numbers. And the above Eccl. 3:15 verse has another previous verse 14 that surely parallel's this same Rev. truth.

[14] I know that, whatsoever God doeth, (and sayeth) it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
[15] That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

Yet, the Jer. 17:5 ones want this just to pertain to one book of Rev.? Naw, I don't buy into that either! The same pen also penned John 1:1-3 & verse 9 +11-14 and that same John said by Inspiration that the Rev. Word of God/Jesus is The Word Eternal, in Completeness! Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
....

[7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
[8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
[9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

(Light into the world! but void out the O.T. Truth? + the Eternal Gospel + what holds the Heb. 13:20 ETERNAL COVENANT of the Godhead as seen by John in [REV.'s] Prophecy of Rev. 11:19... then see 2 Thess. 2:9-11 for these 'some' ones.)

[10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (Acts 7:38!)
[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

--Elijah

 

[Cornelius]

I want to first and foremost say I really like how well this is post was put together. I think a lot of inspiration was involved.

I was personally in complete agreement and thrilled to read the thoughts till I came up on this one. It just caught me off guard because it seemed to be the first thing that was taken out of context, as I see it. I am not debating the thought process, but rather wanting to let you know what I think so that you might be able to better respond to some questions.

Paul here talks about them receiving the 'word of the message'. He also went on to proclaim that it indeed was the word of God, but in context do you not think that Paul is specifically talking about the gospel? I think personally that it takes away from the significance of what the Gospel is when we try to attribute other things to its simplicity.

I am NOT saying that the NT is not inspired by God and infallible. I think it is. But I am just wondering if you have any more evidence to back up the thought that Paul considered the 'writings' of the NT as the Word of God?

I think that you post a most excellent assertion that we should return to the original Gospel and contend earnestly for it, even as Jude stated we should. And again, not in a debating way am I saying this, but don't you think that the Gospel is the Gospel, and the teachings of Christ are the teachings of Christ? They are separate, but yet linked together in truth.

I understand that the "Gospel" is the "Good news". But then the question is, 'Good news of what?'. To that I would reply, 'The Good news of our Salvation'. Our Salvation is none other than Jesus the Christ. Now, Jesus also taught us, through the magnification of the law, how we should live 'soberly' in this present time. However, Jude was concerned for the faith that was once and all delivered to us ALL(as you so wonderfully stated).

Faith is based on the Word of God, not the teaching of man. To base a persons faith on what the NT says would be to detract from what the Word of God says. Does it matter? In some ways I do not think so, but then in some ways I do. I will never deny the infallible nature of the NT. But we have also seen how throughout times past it has almost 'replaced' the OT for its predominance. To the point where we 'believe' the OT as the Word of God, but we also think it should not be taken "literal".

However, the NT should be taken 'literal'....at least in some places....some would say. And how I see it, is that the NT is simply a magnification of the OT. The disciples and early believers did not have the NT. They had the OT.

Here is the point I am getting to; When we put so high a tag on the NT as it stands, then we have to take away from the OT as it stands. Why? Because by the very way we describe them, "Old" versus "New". I use the terminology, personally, only as a reference to the different parts of the Bible. But somewhere along the way it was "deemed" as such, and no one questions why. But the NT has subconsciously taken the place of the OT in peoples minds.

Does this make sense?

You make many points. The simplest answer for me would be: The New does not contradict the Old. They are in perfect harmony.

In my later post I posted a link where science proves that both old and new were indeed written (not just inspired) by God. A prophecy and a fulfillment.

 

[Cornelius]

I am not sure how to put this without it being taken the wrong way. So please do not regard this as condescending or debateful in nature. I am very aware of the rules that govern this site, and wish to respect them.

However, you bring up a long time debated thought, that I believe can be defined indefinitely in and of its own self. The idea that when at the end of Revelation it tells of the "book", that it is speaking of the Bible as a whole.

How do we come to the assumption that it does? What brought us to that point? Because as I am aware, there are a multitude of different Bibles out there. Some include some "books", some don't. You state the truth when we should consider it infallible in its original language. But there are many "books" that were either included or not in their original language.

So my question is, if there is a "book" that was left out does it then bring the condemnation of Revelation? And if there was a "book" added? So then we have to go back to who decided what "books" should be included and what should not. See where this can be very complicated? And the complication seems to only 'muddy' the waters.

When on the other hand, if you are to take it in its context and apply it to the "book" of prophecy, otherwise known as Revelation, then it does not raise doubts in peoples minds about the infallible Bible we have today.

There is no doubt, that many ancient Hebrew texts, contained much more writings than what we have today 2000 years later. And there is no doubt that there were many discussions that arose over the compiling of the NT.

Again. If you were just intending this for a blog and not discussion then by all means ask a moderator to remove my posts. But if there can be civil discussion that can ensue without debate, I would love to talk about this. I hope this makes sense.

Again my answer would be that you should look at the link I provided.

Also I want to point out that when I say " Word of God" I am not speaking of Bibles . They are "translations". There are but one "Scriptures" and those are written in Hebrew and Greek. Those are the Scriptures we cannot add to or take away from. A translation is just that ; a translation.

When tested , only some texts passed the numeric test.

 

[Cornelius]

I have no doubt in my mind that we have all the Scriptures today. Why? Because God is sovereign and controls everything. Its His Word and He is more than able to have provided us with exactly what we have today. If not, well, then it means He is not sovereign and not even able to provide His disciples with His Word. I know that , that is not so. He is able and have done according to His will.

 

[Elijah674]

Again my answer would be that you should look at the link I provided.

Also I want to point out that when I say " Word of God" I am not speaking of Bibles . They are "translations". There are but one "Scriptures" and those are written in Hebrew and Greek. Those are the Scriptures we cannot add to or take away from. A translation is just that ; a translation.

When tested , only some texts passed the numeric test.

And hear we go again!!! God cannot provide His own with any Trust Worthy Bible just before He comes again, so we need your [posted] wisdom!-------HOG/WASH!

--Elijah

 

[Cornelius]

I will never deny the infallible nature of the NT. But we have also seen how throughout times past it has almost 'replaced' the OT for its predominance.

In truth it can never replace it because they are intertwined. The Old is the shadow of the New. I love the Old Testament, because the New is reflected in the types and shadows. The glory of the Word is revealed in its sum. The whole seen together , through the revelation granted , through grace, by the Holy Spirit.

I love this verse sa 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever.

 

[Nathan]

Again my answer would be that you should look at the link I provided.

Also I want to point out that when I say " Word of God" I am not speaking of Bibles . They are "translations". There are but one "Scriptures" and those are written in Hebrew and Greek. Those are the Scriptures we cannot add to or take away from. A translation is just that ; a translation.

When tested , only some texts passed the numeric test.

Oh, I agree, that was not my intentions either. I believe that the originals are written in Greek and Hebrew, with the exception of some Aramaic. Regardless, what I am saying is that there are "other" letters from the time when the NT letters were being written. They are also in Greek. Some in the early church included them, some did not. Some did not want Hebrews, or 2 Peter included in the 'cannon' of the Bible as we know it.

My point is that you are going to find the NT writers always referring to the OT as the Word of God. In fact, the OT even claims it for itself when you hear the phrase, "the word of the Lord came to me". But you do not hear that in reference to the actual language used in the NT letters. They are instructions that cannot be ignored, but the only reason why they were 'combined' into a single "book"(Bible), is because they were scrutinized over and over and compared to what was taught them from the time that Christ was on the Earth.

I am not saying that they lack any truth, or that they are fallible in anyway. I believe them to be divinely inspired, but there is not "Biblical" proof that they are the "word of God".

I will look at the link, but I would agree that even science tells us that there is no accident that this book is what it is today. But the OT stands alone when it speaks, for it speaks to the person of Christ. The NT speaks to His teaching.

All in all I guess it really does not matter, maybe, because the Apostles did speak with authority when they spoke. But I find a undeniable fact that the NT never claims to "be" the Word of God. And if it never claims it, then there must be a reason.

 

[Elijah674]

You say Nate:

However, the NT should be taken 'literal'....at least in some places....some would say. And how I see it, is that the NT is simply a magnification of the OT. The disciples and early believers did not have the NT. They had the OT.

Here is the point I am getting to; When we put so high a tag on the NT as it stands, then we have to take away from the OT as it stands. Why? Because by the very way we describe them, "Old" versus "New". I use the terminology, personally, only as a reference to the different parts of the Bible. But somewhere along the way it was "deemed" as such, and no one questions why. But the NT has subconsciously taken the place of the OT in peoples minds.

Does this make sense?
__________________

Elijah here: It sure does! Isa. 42:21 'Documents this to a -T-' Lets just through in this in Luke from Christ's personal Words for man's wisdom of [any translation or Greek or Hebrew!]

K.J. on Luke 23

[39] And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
[40] But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
[41] And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

[42] And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
[43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

OK: The translators were good men no doubt, and the verse has their agreed to numbers as they applied periods & comma's used as [uninspired man saw the written words]. Regardless of what language that they are written in.

So let's put the verse in place that agreed with Christ's other Scriptures, + the OT's documentation of what happens at death!

Here is how it should read:

[43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

As you can see, the comma was moved by me to agree with Christ in John 20:17 that after three days and then being resurrected, He still had not gone to PARADISE YET! Nor do O.T. Scripture disagree! (later maybe, huh?)

--Elijah

PS: On the O.T. the Jewish Publication Society has two volumes that I like. (Yes Hebrew.) I always figured that if you want the Truth, go to the Jewish LEGALIST. The big drawback is that they go from right to left which makes it kind of hard to follow.

 

[Cornelius]

Oh, I agree, that was not my intentions either. I believe that the originals are written in Greek and Hebrew, with the exception of some Aramaic. Regardless, what I am saying is that there are "other" letters from the time when the NT letters were being written. They are also in Greek. Some in the early church included them, some did not. Some did not want Hebrews, or 2 Peter included in the 'cannon' of the Bible as we know it.

My point is that you are going to find the NT writers always referring to the OT as the Word of God. In fact, the OT even claims it for itself when you hear the phrase, "the word of the Lord came to me". But you do not hear that in reference to the actual language used in the NT letters. They are instructions that cannot be ignored, but the only reason why they were 'combined' into a single "book"(Bible), is because they were scrutinized over and over and compared to what was taught them from the time that Christ was on the Earth.

I am not saying that they lack any truth, or that they are fallible in anyway. I believe them to be divinely inspired, but there is not "Biblical" proof that they are the "word of God".

I will look at the link, but I would agree that even science tells us that there is no accident that this book is what it is today. But the OT stands alone when it speaks, for it speaks to the person of Christ. The NT speaks to His teaching.

All in all I guess it really does not matter, maybe, because the Apostles did speak with authority when they spoke. But I find a undeniable fact that the NT never claims to "be" the Word of God. And if it never claims it, then there must be a reason.

When you have read the link , you will understand that what we have today was not inspired, but written. God knew that we would have trouble understanding so He made provision for that. Through the work of Panin, we know today without a shadow of a doubt that we have the whole Word of God, combines in the Old and New testament. Just like Moses carried down two tablets of stone down the mountain .

All other letters and writings and all apocryphal books tested, did not show the numeric pattern that both the Old and the New shows.