The Bible isn't the word of God. It contains the word of God

CARM ^ | 07/21/2014 | Matt Slick

[Seven_0]

The Bible says that scripture preached to Abraham but the Bible was not written until later. Perhaps we should broaden our definition of Scripture to include Christ. In the beginning was the word. Also it was 430 years from the promise to Abraham to the giving of the law to Moses (Gal 3:17-18).

[mlo]

"And [Jesus] said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” Thus he declared all foods clean." Mark 7:18-19 (ESV)

But of course all foods are not clean. There really are things you shouldn't eat.

And there's this: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18

Did he destroy the law, or didn't he? See how it works? People believe what they want, and they come up with scriptural justifications for it either way.

[boatbums]

There are however non-biblical teachings in the "disputed book", which really aren't disputed by the Hebrews or the early church. It is the RCC that continues to purport these are inspired Scripture.

I agree. This topic has been posted on FR a number of times and it is pretty regularly brought up whenever there's an ongoing Cath vs. Prot argument - it is some people's imagined "trump card".

What I have yet to get an answer to, and I've asked it several times, is what are their "favorite" passages from any of those books and what doctrines are found there that cannot be found anywhere in the undisputed books of the Bible. I have concluded that the real reason for the defense of these books is because it became an issue during the Council of Trent and some conclude - somehow - that this is enough evidence to prove the Roman Catholic church is superior to all other churches. Personally, I don't see the point. I think many Catholics have no idea what these books are about, who wrote them, why they were included while others were not even though they were in the Septuagint or that the Septuagint contained several OTHER books that were left out of the Trent canon. Appealing to their presence in the LXX is not really an adequate argument for why ALL Christians must accept them as inspired Scripture.