Is the Bible God's Word? (Do you believe the Bible is the only word of God?)

http://www.jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html ^ | Ahmed Deedat

[Stourme]

THE CATHOLIC BIBLE

Holding the "Douay" Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible" claim.

The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":

". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:

The Book of Judith
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Baruch
The Buck of Esther, etc.
* This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.

[GreyMountainReagan]

Don’t dare let TN defend him/herself?

[bdeaner]

Nothing in Sacred Tradition contradicts Scripture—all is inspired by the Word, and is visible as the Deposit of Faith established and maintained by the Church. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***LOL You think the Morrisite Massacre was about religious dogma? ***

Cut to the chase... It was the Prophet Brigham Young vs the Prophet Joseph Morris. Young didn’t like the competition.

http://www.utahgothic.com/history/morrisites/morrisites%201.html

Only this siege took place in June 1862. The troop, a posse headed by a territorial Marshal loyal to Brigham Young. The cult of true believers, the Morrisites, a group that had deserted Young’s fold to create a “purer” version of Mormonism.

As the posse fired cannon volleys into the Morrisite encampment, the weary cult members hunkered down waiting for the second coming of Christ. Their leader, one Joseph Morris, prayed for guidance while bullets and cannonball rained down upon his flock.

I also have a picture of a woman who as a child had half her face blown off by Young’s cannon fire.

[adopt4Christ]

What you say is not what God Himself says to us, in His Word, the Bible. I see you are accustomed to trivializing those of us who believe in the inerrant, inspired Word of God by name-calling and personal attacks. I do not “thump” His Word, or minimize its ability to change our lives by revealing to us the heart and message of God to His creation. The Bible in its entirety came to us in supernatural ways, over centuries of time, as God spoke to writers from His heart to their pen. The Bible does not contain the Word of God — it IS the Word of God. There is a difference.

As believers in Jesus,God’s Son — all we have to guide our lives is God’s Word and God’s Spirit. This is all we need to fulfill our calling here on earth. The Bible only leads us to the intimacy with our Creator that He intended all along for us to have. Most of us never come close to what He offers us, to experience His love and grace and forgiveness.

We worship only Him, and not a book. We follow His heart as we learn of Him through the miracle of the Bible, which reveals His nature and His message. Nothing more — nothing less.

[colorcountry]

Don’t dare let TN defend him/herself?

Tennessee Nana does a very fine job. I just wanted you to know that you aren't the moderator around here.

What was your old screen name retread?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

>>>But let me educate you a little bit about Catholic beliefs, since you seem to have a misunderstanding here.

 

Thank you for your willingness to educate me, but as a confirmed Catholic and former alter boy, it

is not necessary.

 

>>>The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible.

 

I've read the Bible numerous times. We'll have to agree to disagree on that statement.

 

>>>Some Catholic thinkers would even say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support one another.

 

Couldn't disagree more. What you wrote is true - Catholic "thinkers" would say that.

>>>Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church's living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and how to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages - so we can solve conflicts of interpretations such as those represented on this thread, for example. In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible, "You have been reading a very important book which contains God's revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning."

 

Very useful. Not equal to God's revealed and holy Word.

>>>With that said, you must also understand that the Bible itself calls the Church and not the Bible the "pillar and ground of the truth."

 

I agree it says this. Where we disagree is what is meant by this verse. Here is something to think about...

 

Each local church supports the witness of each believer in it and holds that testimony up before the world. Paul did not elaborate how it does this here, though the models suggested by the terms “shepherd” (“pastor”), “elder,” “overseer,” and “deacon” provide some clues.

139. See A. Duane Litfin, “The Nature of the Pastoral Role: The Leader as Completer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):57-66.

Tom Constable: Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible. Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003, S. 1 Ti 3:14

 

>>>Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the Bible, but it IS intended to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative teaching Church which was commissioned to teach "all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

 

I find much to agree with you here.

>>>It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.

 

I agree the Church has a role in safeguarding and teachinig the Word.

>>>It is also evident from these passages that this same Church would be infallible,

 

I dont' think that is the point of the passage at all, based on what it says and on the context.

 

>>>for if at any time in its history it would definitively teach error to the Church as a whole in matters of faith or morals--even temporarily--it would cease being this "pillar and ground of truth." Since a "ground" or foundation by its very nature is meant to be a permanent support, and since the above-mentioned passages do not allow for the possibility of the Church ever definitively teaching doctrinal or moral error, the only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was refering to its infallibility when He called it the "pillar and ground of the truth."

 

I believe the problem here is not with the Church being a pillar and ground of truth, but of your

understanding of what that means.

>>>The Protestant, however, has a dilemma here by asserting the bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers.

 

I don't think it is a problem for them.

 

>>>In what capacity, then, is the Churh the "pillar and ground of the truth" if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ?

 

I don't see anywhere in scripture that the Church is infallible.

 

>>>How can the Church be this "pillar and ground" if it has no tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian?

 

The Church has exactly that: a practical and tangible responsibility to teach. Christ has given members

of the Church the spiritual gift of teaching for this reason (1 Cor. 12:28 - 29; Rom. 12:7). It also serves

as an authority.

 

 

>>>The Protestant would effectively deny that the Chruch is the "pillar and ground of the truth" by denying that the Churh has the authority to teach.

 

Yea, I don't think they do at all.

 

>>>No wonder Protestantism has a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes

 

Historically, so does the RC church.

 

>>>and no surprise that no two denominations completely agree--even on major doctrinal changes. Such shifting and changing could not possibly be considered a foundation or "ground of the truth." For that ground, you need to cross the Tiber.

 

You're grasping here. Most of the Protestants agree on the major matters of faith. I also see a great

many RCs who disagree with their church on major issues - including Bishops.

 

Hey, I'm fine with you worshipping Christ however you would like. I don't think it is a clear cut as you

are making it out to be though...

 

best,

ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

>>>Deifying a book, even the Bible is a form of idol worship.

Stormy, first time I’ve read something in your post that
I agree with. Let’s share the moment and think a happy thought
together. :-)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

>>>Nothing in Sacred Tradition contradicts Scripture—all is inspired by the Word, and is visible as the Deposit of Faith established and maintained by the Church. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

If you make the claim, I believe it rests on you to back
it up.

:-)

[GreyMountainReagan]

“What was your old screen name retread?”

You will have to take my word on this. This is my first and only screen name on FR.

Was a lurker for years but have only posted under this name.

Nice assumption though.

[Godzilla]

what I see here is a complete lack of bdeaner's understanding of what the church is. It is not a denomination or buildings, it is the assembly of all believers since Christ. Paul likened the the church to a body whose overall components work together while having different functions. Second is the difference between religion, which bdeaner seems to be promoting, and relationship which is promoted by Christianity.

[bdeaner]

If you make the claim, I believe it rests on you to back it up

I have plenty of back up. It's called the Vatican Library. ;)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“I have plenty of back up. It’s called the Vatican Library. ;)”

I’d love to spend a week in the archives there!

[bdeaner]

what I see here is a complete lack of bdeaner's understanding of what the church is. It is not a denomination or buildings, it is the assembly of all believers since Christ. Paul likened the the church to a body whose overall components work together while having different functions. Second is the difference between religion, which bdeaner seems to be promoting, and relationship which is promoted by Christianity.

I saw that one coming...

Your response of course is the typical Protestant response, in which the term "church" means something quite different from what the Catholic Church understands it to mean. As you mention, and paraphrasing you, Protestants see "the church" as an invisible entity, and for them it refers collectively to all Christian believers around the world who are united by faith in Christ, despite major variations in doctrine and denominational allegiance.

Catholics, on the other hand, understand it to mean not only those true believers who are united as Christ's Mystical Body, but we simultaneously understand it to refer to a visible, historical entity as well, namely, that one--and only that one--organization which can trace its lineage in an unbroken line back to the Apostles themselves: the Catholic Church. It is this Church and this Church alone which was established by Christ and which has maintained an absolute consistency in doctrine throughout its existence, and it is therefore this Church alone which can claim to be that very "pillar and ground of the truth."

Protestantism, by comparison, as I mentioned above, has known a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes, and not two denominations completely agree--even on major doctrinal issues. How could this be considered a foundation or "ground of the truth"? When the foundation of a structure shifts or is improperly set, that structure's very support is unreliable (cf. Matt. 7:26-27). Since in practice the beliefs of Protestantism have undergone change both within denominations and through the continued appearance of new denominations, these beliefs are like a foundation which shifts and moves. Such beliefs therefore cease to provide the support necessary to maintain the structure they uphold, and the integrity of that structure becomes compromised. Our Lord clearly did not intend for His followers to build their spiritual houses on such an unreliable foundation.

Yes, Brother, we seem to have different interpretations of what "church" means even as we both clearly possess the same inspired Word of God in the Bible. Who is right? By what authority do you claim your intepretation is the truth? My authority is the Church. What is yours?

I am doing what Christ told us to do in order to correct our Brothers and Sisters in Christ. In Matthew 18:15-18, we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17)--that is, as an outsider who is lost.

Moreoever, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church's infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18).

Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to Scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the Scriptures; He was not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves. For example, he would respond to the Scribes and the Pharisees by using Scripture precisely becuase they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture.

His actions do not argue that Scripture should be sola, or an authority in itself and, in fact, the only Christian authority. Quite the contrary: whenever Christ refers His hearers to the Scriptures, He also provides His infallible, authorative interpretations of them, demonstrating that the Scriptures do not interpret themselves.

The Catholic Church readily acknowledges the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. But the Catholic doctrine is that the immediate rule of faith for the Christian is the teaching authority of the Church--an authority to teach and interpret both Scripture and Tradition, as Matt. 18:17-18 shows.

It should also be noted that implicit (perhaps even explicit) in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the "Church" must have been a visible, tangible entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If the Protestant definition of "church" were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to "hear" each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord's statement here is to acknowledge that there was a definite organization, with positions of authority readily identifiable, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.

Notice again how Sacred Tradition accords beautifully with the Bible.

[Stourme]

Stormy, first time I’ve read something in your post that I agree with. Let’s share the moment and think a happy thought together. :-)

LOL!

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“He spent a considerable amount of time teaching about the reality of hell, His words to the religious rulers were Hell fire and brimstone to the max. Jesus wasn’t one of these can’t we all just get along types of guys.”

I said as much in the post you seem not to like - “Jesus was hard on the Pharisees - the religious rulers of that day. He will be equally hard on the religious rulers of this day.” He pulled no punches with the Pharisees etc - the religious rulers - and we should be similiarly hard on the false teachings heard in “Christian” churches and on TV today.

“...assessment based upon a flawed assumption that most of Christianity today is so far removed from Jesus’ core teachings that He wouldn’t be recognized for who he is.”

Much of Christianity today IS far removed from Jesus’ core teachings and He would not be recognised, or he would be recognised and rejected (the Pharisees recognised and rejected). Many, if not most, Christians are in a box and see only that aspect of God that the want to see, or that they can see through their little peep-hole.

“...most of the writings of Paul to the churches included a significant amount of teachings and instructions on how to recognize and deal with false teachers and prophets.”

Yes, and Paul was addressing the problem of false teachers and prophets in the churches - in churches he planted. The religious leaders today are failing in addressing this problem in their own areas of responsibility.

When Paul was preaching the Good News, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he took a different approach - for instance when he stood on Mars’ Hill in Athens...”Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

That is not the often heard Hell-Fire and Brimstone gospel message, though it is direct and speaks to the heart of those hearing. Some think they have to scare the hell out of the sinner needing to turn to Jesus, then they have an altar call and say, “repeat after me...”. How many of these are genuinely born again? How many of these will wonder who He is when He comes again? How many of these know Him now?

Ranting at or about those religionists (LDS, JW, Scientolgists, etc) who do not have the truth will have little to do with changing them. Approaching their adherents individually and presenting the message of Jesus to them in a loving way has been and is successful, when the Holy Spirit touches the individual’s heart and new birth results.

Share Jesus with everyone you meet - use words if you have to.

[Stourme]

I see you are accustomed to trivializing those of us who believe in the inerrant, inspired Word of God by name-calling and personal attacks.

Here, take one of these.

The Bible does not contain the Word of God — it IS the Word of God.

The title "Word of God" is reserved for Jesus Christ. Not a book.

John 1:1 - 3
1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Inerrant? Sooner or later common sense and truth have to win out. The Bible is not inerrant. Groups that claim that the Bible is inerrant in my opinion, have paper thin faith.

It takes more faith to admit the truth and yet understand that the mistakes were made by men and continue to believe.

[Elsie]

When not commanded it is an abomination.

Show the COMMAND from GOD.

All we get pointed to is an 'if'.

[Elsie]

(I was merely trying to avoid the crying we WILL hear; later on in this thread. ;^)

[Elsie]

This particular discussion dealt with LC’s use of the Book of Mormon to show something like even the Book of Mormon says plural is alway wrong, and the Mormons didn’t even understand that.

Hey!

I wasn't the ONE who penned those words!

And, likewise, I can't CHANGE what has been penned about ABOMINATION!!

(Only the LIVING PROPHET® (pbuh) can supercede what has already been published by the LDS print shop. (Uh... as long as the TWELVE say he can.)

---

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19   17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!   18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.   19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”   20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”     PRESBYTERIANISM is just FINE when GOD commands it!!!