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

CARM ^ | 07/21/2014 | Matt Slick

[SeekAndFind]

by Matt Slick

One of the objections raised by critics of biblical inspiration is that the Bible is not the word of God, but that it contains the word of God.  Is this accurate?  No.  First of all, this doesn't fit what the Bible says about itself.  The collection of 66 books that the Christian Church recognized as being inspired speaks as the very words of God in many places.

1. "Thus says the Lord" occurs over 400 times in the Old Testament.
2. "God said" occurs 42 times in the Old Testament and four times in the New Testament.
3. "God spoke" occurs 9 times in the Old Testament and 3 times in the New Testament.
4. "The Spirit of the Lord spoke" through people in 2 Sam. 23:2; 1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron. 20:14.

Of course, the errantists (those who say the Bible in its original documents had errors) will reject these scriptures' accuracy; that is, they will deny that God's word is without error--even in the originals.

If appealing to the Bible in a general sense isn't good enough.  Let's consider that Jesus said the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (all of the Old Testament) were Scripture, and that the Scriptures cannot be broken--cannot fail (John 10:35).

Some might say that there are instances of verses that "contain" God's word, but that it doesn't mean the Bible is God's word.  The problem is addressed by Jesus.

Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures."

Notice that Jesus speaks about what is written regarding him in the Old Testament.  Then Luke writes that Jesus opened their mind to understand the Scriptures.  What Scriptures?  The Law (Moses), the Prophets, and the Psalms.  This was a common designation for the Old Testament.  Therefore, Jesus says that the written form of the Old Testament is Scripture.  Jesus goes on to deal with the religious leaders who would violate these Scriptures which he called "the word of God."

• Matt 15:6, "he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
• Mark 7:13, "thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
• John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)."

Jesus never said the scriptures contain the word of God.  He said they were the word of God.  Therefore, we can see that the word of God is the written form of Scripture.  In fact, we are told by Paul not to exceed what is written.  Note, Paul doesn't say to not exceed the parts of the scripture that contain God's word; he says not to exceed what is written!

1 Cor. 4:6, "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

It is the written form that is proclaimed as being Scripture, unbreakable, the word of God, and the standard of which we are not to exceed.  This can only be true if the written form is the Word of God and not just something that subjectively contains the word of God.

What does it mean to be the Word of God?

The Bible is full of citations where it quotes God.  However, it also has citations of non-inspired individuals, such as Judas, Herod, etc. Satan, for example, lied when addressing Eve in The Garden of Eden.  This means that the Bible contains a record of a lie.  But how can such an error be included in the Word of God and still have the word of God be inerrant since a lie is an error?

The answer is that the Bible inerrantly records the lie.  It makes no mistakes in its reporting of events, in its proclamation of truth, and in its revelation of God's will.  Where it may record the lies, failures, deception, etc., of various individuals, it does so perfectly and without error.  Likewise, when it records historical events, genealogies, etc., it does so using the idioms and cultural norms of the time--yet it is without error.

Jesus acknowledged this when he said that the Word of God, the Scripture, cannot be broken.  This means that it cannot fail.  Why? because the written form of the word of God, which is Scripture, is inspired; and because it is inspired, it cannot fail; it must be fulfilled. Remember, Jesus called the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (all of the Old Testament) Scripture; and he says that the Scriptures cannot be broken--cannot fail.  He was obviously referring to the written form of the Old Testament:

• Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures."
• John 10:35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)."

If a citation of a city was incorrect, is that not a failure of Scripture?  If a date is wrong, is that not a failure of scripture?  Likewise, would not an error in a fact likewise be a failure in the Scripture?  Of course it would!  But Jesus says the Scriptures cannot be broken.  They cannot fail.  Is Jesus wrong?

Is the New Testament also Scripture?

It should go without saying that the New Testament is also Scripture.  The early church recognized the New Testament documents as being authentic and inspired and included them in the canon of Scripture along with the Old Testament.  In fact, Paul recognized the authority that his words had in the church.  Take for example what he said to the Colossians.

Col. 4:16, "And when this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.^"1

Likewise, Peter made an interesting comment about Paul's writings when he said,

"as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Pet. 3:16).

Peter called Paul's writings Scripture.  In turn, Paul called Scriptures "God-breathed," and Jesus said the Scriptures cannot fail.

Scripture is God-breathed

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ¹⁷ that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed."  This is an interesting phrase since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God.

Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."  Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human will.  Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit.

God spoke through the mouth of the prophets.  We see in Acts 3:18, "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled."  Clearly, Luke, the writer of Acts, understood the Old Testament Scriptures to be spoken by God through the prophets.  In fact, we find other references to the Old Testament referring to God speaking through the prophets.

• Words spoken through the prophet Jeremiah are referenced in Matt. 2:17, 27:9.
• Words spoken through the prophet Isaiah are referenced in Matt. 1:22, 8:17; John 12:37-40.
• Words spoken through the prophets Moses and Hosea are referenced in Matt. 2:15.
• Words spoken through the prophet David are referenced in Matt. 13:34-35.
• Words spoken through the prophet Zechariah are referenced in Matt. 21:4.
• Words spoken through the prophets generically are referenced in Matt. 26:56.

Because the prophets speak for God, write Scripture, and make prophecies, the Scriptures must be fulfilled.  It is the written Scriptures that are referenced here.  It is not some vague and ambiguous reference to some areas of the Bible that "contain" the word of God.

The problem of subjectivity

If the Bible contains the word of God but is not the word of God, then we must ask which parts of the Bible are the Word of God and which are not?  The problem in answering this question is that the one who seeks to do so inadvertently places himself as the judge of what is and what is not inspired and without error.  But by what standard would such a person make such judgment?

What about the numerous contradictions in the Bible?

It is true that there are difficulties within the Word of God.  But these are due to copying errors through the centuries.  As more and more historical, archaeological, and manuscript evidence is uncovered, the fewer Bible difficulties there are. Nevertheless, for an examination of answers to the alleged Bible contradictions, please see The Bible Difficulties section in the navigation menu on the left.

Conclusion

When claims that the Bible contains the word of God but is not the word of God are made, it is done so usually because the critic of inspiration wants to assert that the original documents in the Bible contained errors.  The problem is that this undermines the very trustworthiness of God's Word.  How are we to decide what is and is not inspired and therefore true if the very breath of God moving through a sinner results in documents with mistakes?  Does this inspire trust in God's Word?  Does it promote security and rest in believing God's Word?  Obviously not.

This undermines the faith of Christians and is, naturally, a dangerous and false teaching.

 

• 1. The Epistles from the apostles were publicly read in the church assemblies. Ignatius [Epistle to the Ephesians, 12], Polycarp [Epistle to the Philippians, 3.11,12], Clement [Epistle to the Corinthians, 1.47]"  (Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1998.)

[boatbums]

I appreciate the article as it says in easy-to-understand words what is a central tenet of Christianity - that we CAN trust the Scriptures to be our rule of faith. Thank you.

[chajin]

And as for those who had split from "Catholic," who exactly gave them the authority to subtract books from the Canon?

I have a question, which is not rhetorical but honest: is any of the Apocrypha ever part of the weekly lectionary in the RC or various Orthodox churches?

[Kandy Atz]

It is true that there are difficulties within the Word of God.

After several decades in God's Word, I am certain most of those "difficulties" have been introduced by man, meaning primarily religious tradition. If you rightly divide the Word as Paul directs Timothy (2 Timothy 2:15), those difficulties will disappear - I've watched many a sacred cow of my own fade away in the light of God's Truth. (Psalm 119:130)

The biggest challenge for any Believer is being prepared to reevaluate and dump all the religious hooey pushed through the centuries that contradicts the Word, and with a pure heart approach God's Word with a desire for Truth. You must believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal the Word as you continually consume and believe it. This requires digging into the original languages, and understanding its figurative use by the culture of that time. You cannot know Jesus apart from His Word. They are one and the same.

The good news is that the accumulated knowledge of our generation, our easy access to it through available technology, has completely changed the way one can study God's Word. Even a child can instantly research a verse, passage, or even a single word in its original language, compare it to every other use, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, know the true meaning and application of any passage, verse, or word in the Bible. Its a good time to be a Believer. No longer are you captive to religion that will pervert and manipulate God's Word. The Truth sets you FREE from religious bondage. (John 8:31-32) When religion questions God's Word, "Did God really say?" You can answer confidently with the words of Jesus, "It is written."

However, if you cling to your your religion more than you love God's Truth, the Bible will be of little use, and there will be a whole lot of "difficulties" in your path.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

yes, and has been for almost 2,000 years. what you call the “apocrypha” were in the Greek Septuagint, which was the Bible used by St Paul and all the other Apostles. We have no record from their writings nor in Sacred Tradition that these books were not accepted as Scripture. If the Bible only contains 66 books, this means that no one had the correct Bible for the first 1,500 years of Church History and the same men used by the Holy Spirit to compile the 27 book NT, somehow got the OT canon wrong. if that is possible, who is to say that they didn’t get the NT wrong as well. see how dangerous this thinking is?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

one more point, those who defend the 39 book OT canon point to the Jews and say it is the canon they accept. true enough, but these are the same Jews that Jesus declared to be spiritually blind. He promised the Holy Spirit would be given to believers and lead them to all truth. So the Church, guided by the promised Holy Spirit, was able to determine Scripture from non-Scripture. I believe our God is great enough and powerful enough to make sure His people have the correct Scriptures, not be wrong for 1,500 years. Hopefully you agree.

[Boogieman]

“Those who take themselves out of “Catholic,” take themselves out of the Canon.”

Who took themselves out? Your Pope got together with the churches that still agreed with him and voted the rest out.

“You might want to consider the first 1500 years. Did the Holy Spirit abandon the Christian people for 1500 years, just to pop in again in the 16th century and reveal: “You got the canon wrong”?

And as for those who had split from “Catholic,” who exactly gave them the authority to subtract books from the Canon? Some king?”

Nope, those books were never in the canon of inspired literature before the Reformation, so there was nothing to be subtracted.

“Or, instead of 1500 years, switch your focus to 2,000 years. The big majority of Christians still have the full canon -— 73 books. There has been a Christian church in continuous existence for 1900 years in Mosul, Iraq. They speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus. They have the same canon as the rest of us Catholics.”

The church has been in continuous existence, but I highly doubt they have been using that canon of 73 books for 2000 years. Like most churches in the East, they probably had their own canon until it got standardized much later. For example, when the Portuguese re-established contact with the Syro-Malabar church in the 1500s, they had to burn all their Bibles because their canon was not in line with Rome’s. We could also go back further than 2000 years, since we are talking about pre-Christian writings. Of course then we would learn that these books were never considered part of the Hebrew canon, so that wouldn’t be very convenient for the narrative you have constructed.

[Eccl 10:2]

This isn’t that hard, y’all:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And to those who think that any human source is equal to it:

Revelation 22:18-19 New International Version (NIV)

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

can you name anyone using a 66 book bible prior to 16th century?

when Calvin and Luther first picked up a Bible, how many books were in the Bible they were reading?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

can you tell me who you believe thinks any human source is equal to Scripture? anyone?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

does any human or group of humans have the authority to declare the definitive canon of Scripture?
if yes, please name him/her/them and how they received this authority.
if no, isn’t everyone then free to decide for themselves what is Scripture and what isn’t?

[Salvation]

CARM=Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

apologetics - explaining doctrine

research — turn to Jesus Christ.

[Boogieman]

“can you name anyone using a 66 book bible prior to 16th century?”

Well, the Protestants of the 16th century weren’t using a “66 book bible” either, so what does that prove?

“when Calvin and Luther first picked up a Bible, how many books were in the Bible they were reading?”

Well, that depends on which version of the Bible they picked up. You do know that there were multiple versions, even before the Protestants came along, don’t you?

[GeorgiaGuy]

I have a question, which is not rhetorical but honest: is any of the Apocrypha ever part of the weekly lectionary in the RC or various Orthodox churches?

---

Yes. For example, yesterday’s (Sunday, July 20, 2014) first Reading at Mass was Wisdom 12.13, 16-19.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: one more point, those who defend the 39 book OT canon point to the Jews and say it is the canon they accept. true enough, but these are the same Jews that Jesus declared to be spiritually blind.

I’ mot sure we can use this as proof that the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time (i.e. the Pharisees ) were using the wrong scripture or Canon.

Jesus DID tell the people to LISTEN to the teachings of the Pharisees, not to follow their hypocritical ways.

MATTHEW 23:1-3

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so DO and OBSERVE WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

please read Acts 5:21-32. Once the Church was established and the Holy Spirit poured out, the seat of Moses ceased to exist. Actually, the seat of Moses was a type of the Church.
Hopefully you would not follow the present day Pharisees if they commanded you not to believe in Jesus Christ.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Well, the Protestants of the 16th century weren’t using a “66 book bible” either, so what does that prove

it proves to me that some believe God is the author of confusion, I don’t place myself in that camp.

the Muslims must be laughing their butt off when some say the Christians were using the wrong Bible for 1,500 years.

[SeekAndFind]

We’re not talking about belief in Jesus Christ here, we’re talking about the Apocrypha and whether it should be part of the Canon of scripture or not.

Acts 5:21-32 has nothing to do with that issue.

[Salvation]

The seven books ARE part of the Canon of Scripture.

[boatbums]

“I was trying to be on the level with God, but something remained unspoken. At last the Holy Spirit freed me to say it. ‘Father, I am going to accept this as Thy Word–by faith! I’m going to allow faith to go beyond my intellectual questions and doubts, and I will believe this to be Your inspired Word.’”

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:11)

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The seven books ARE part of the Canon of Scripture.

The question then becomes... why was in considered scripture by the Jews?