Bible Study Just Don’t Call It the “word of God�!

[AVBunyan]

Just Don’t Call It the “word of Godâ€Â!

Ok, some of us folks believe the King James Bible is inspired and without error. If you don’t believe this then it is not my business to correct that. I don’t panic over folks who don’t believe the King James Bible is not perfect – I’ve got more grace than some think.

What I do resent though is calling something the “word of God†when it isn’t.

Let’s look at what the term “word of God†means. If it is the “word of God†then it has to be perfect. Why? God is perfect so His word, which is made up of words, has to be perfect also since they come from God. If God were to appear before you and speak just one word then that one word would be perfect for it came from God, who is perfect. If God were to appear before you and spoke many words then those words would be perfect for it came from God, who is perfect. What God spoke, whether one word or many words can be called the “word of God†for they are from God and thus perfect.

Now, when you call any version the “word of God†then what your term actually means is that what you are referring to is perfect for the term says they must be of God. Now I know what most of you folks mean. When you say the “word of God†you are not referring to a book but to something you cannot put your hands on. If you point to an NIV or a KJV and call it the “word of God†and yet you believe it has errors then that book as a whole cannot be “the “word of God†for God’s words do not have errors or is not an error.

So, to be consistent and honest in your talk then here is how most of you folks who believe there is no perfect translation should describe your “biblesâ€Â. Say it like this:

1. The NIV (or whatever version you are referring to) is a book that contains some of the words of God in it.
2. The NKJV is a book that contains some of the words of God in it.

Now, just who decides which words are the “real thing†is your final authority.

Now, what we resent is you calling anything the “word of God†when it can’t be the “word of God†if it contains error. And you folks claim that all versions have errors in them. So, don’t call any of them the “word of Godâ€Â. Come up with a new term. For when we hear you use “word of God†we are assuming you are talking about a book where all the words are God’s words and therefore without error.

Call your versions a “abtcsotwogâ€Â- “A Book That Contains Some Of The Words Of Godâ€Â. But don’t call it the “word of God†if it has errors in it for God’s words are perfect.

Summary – some of us folks believe we have a book that is “the word of Godâ€Â. All the words in it are from God and are therefore perfect. So we can, with complete honesty and consistency, call our King James Bible the â€word of God.â€Â

If you don’t believe that then fine but don’t call your versions the “word of God†because it can’t be according to your own definition and the definition of terms and words.

God’s words are perfect. Do you have them all or just some of them?

We believe we have them all in one book that history has declared to be the Authorized Version.

God bless

 

[Cross_+_Flame]

Re: Just Don’t Call It the “word of Godâ€Â!

Let’s look at what the term “word of God†means. If it is the “word of God†then it has to be perfect. Why? God is perfect so His word, which is made up of words, has to be perfect also since they come from God. If God were to appear before you and speak just one word then that one word would be perfect for it came from God, who is perfect. If God were to appear before you and spoke many words then those words would be perfect for it came from God, who is perfect. What God spoke, whether one word or many words can be called the “word of God†for they are from God and thus perfect.

We agree that God is infinite and perfect. Given that supposition, let's both accept for the moment your scenario. When God utters those perfect words to our imperfect ears, we write down the greatest representation of those words that we can. Even if God has brought down God's divine speech to be accurately represented in human ears, we still write them down. And we write them down in language, and that's what we call the "Word of God" that is perfect.

However, human language is not infinite and is not perfect. Human language itself is limited. Consider three limitations of language:

1) Language has multiple meanings, and words themselves are polyvalent as they mean different things in different contexts.
2) Language is not fully translatable; you lose something when you translate from one language to another. Look at poetry that is translated, and you will see the meanings are lost with language shifts, as there is so much weight in cultural and historical particulars that it cannot be translated 100% accurately.
3) Language changes over time. It does, plain and simple.

Language is noncommensurable, so no thing that can be measured or standardized can be the infinite word of God. It is therefore impossible for a greek/hebrew/aramaic text from 3000-2000 years ago to go through a canonization process, translated into latin, transported from Mesopotamia to England, compiled into English by King James' handpicked scribes, and the result to still be that perfect Word of God by the very nature of what language essentially is.

To me, there's no "well, since God is controlling it, God would not allow unfaithful words to be put in the process." God does not violate the essential natures of human invention, our ability to speek. That is the pinnacle of our existance, and the essence of our relationship to God and to the rest of creation, so for God to mess with that is to violate our free will.

The essential problem is not that God is not perfect, God is. The problem is not that God is infinite, God is. The problem is that we, as humans with human speech, are neither perfect nor infinite. Therefore, a literalist word-by-word understanding of the Bible is ignoring the essential elements of human-discoursive phenomenon known as language.

Ultimately, then, we have the same definition of the Word of God, but we arrive at two different viewpoints about what that means. And I would contest that I cannot call my NRSV and my NASB "the word of God" because it is just as perfect as your KJV in meaning, metaphor, and that it points to the infinite, perfect God in the same imperfect ways to better our relationship with God.

 

[Heidi]

Hi Av,

I believe the word of God is the message of God. Are the bibles so different that they disagree that Jesus died for the sins of those who believe he did? Are the bibles so different that some say we have to earn our way to heaven while others don't? Is the message consistent throughout scripture? Do the bibles contradict each other or do they convey the same message with a few words here and there changed?

I think it's very important to acknowledge that some languages don't have the same word for the same object as others. So each language has to find a meaning closest to the original text. That means there will be some words that are different than others in other translations. But how many words have been changed to mean the opposite of the original text? And if this particular word or passage contradicts the rest of scripture, then it can be safely seen as an error in translation. That's why again, Jesus says we have one teacher and that is the Christ. If we discern scripture through the Holy Spirit, then we can comprehend the message of God regardless of the translation.

 

[Khristeeanos]

I think I am going to start a movement about MSG-Onlyism.

Only the Message is the word of God and all others are apostate.

Either that or the NWT or something. :roll: