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.)

[Lil Flower]

>> Apocrypha Books

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.<<

[Salvation]

The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
The Canon of Scripture [Ecumenical]
But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright? The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
5 Myths about 7 Books What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]

[Mrs. Don-o]

Because "apocrypha" is a much larger category, can I assume you mean the seven deuterocanonical books? (I like to avoid conflation between the otherwise distinct terms "deuterocanonical" and "apocryphal".)

Looking at my lectionary, the answer is "yes, mostly."

Tobit -- 6 Weekday Mass readings in Year I

Judith -- --

Esther (12:14-16, 21-25)one pericope in the weekday readings

Wisdom -- 15 pericopes in both Sunday and Weekday readings

Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus)-- a whole bunch, spread across both the Sunday and Weekday cycles

Baruch -- 4 pericopes, Sundays and weekdays

Daniel: The Song of Azariah is used as one of the First Readings
I can't find it readily, but I think the Song of the Three Holy Children is sometimes used as a Responsory Psalm, probably when the Fiery Furnace episode is the First Reading

1 Maccabees -- 4 pericopes, all on weekdays of the first cycle

II Maccabees -- 3 pericopes, one on a Sunday, two on weekdays

This is just from running my eyes down the list of the Roman Missal Lectionary, 1970 edition. There might be some "presider's choice of readings" or "alternate readings" for special Masses or feast days of saints, I don't know.

I can't speak for the Orthodox, they have a different lectionary.

It's very nice, by the way, to answer a question by an inquirer who is actually looking for an answer. :o)

[SeekAndFind]

What about these:
The Apocrypha Contradicts Scripture

What About the Apocrypha?

The Apocrypha

[boatbums]

Simple (maybe overly simple, but simple) answer: if the Bible "contains" the word of God, then there are parts of the Bible that made it in, not on the basis of God's will, but human cultural additions. To put it even more simply, if the Bible "contains" the word of God, you don't have to worry about all those silly anti-homosexual-act references, or how divorce is a really bad idea, or wives submitting to their husbands (or husbands having to love their wives sacrificially), or how God loves Israel and will whoopa$$ anyone who attacks it, etc., etc.

You are right. And, because we know that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, we can discern that those extra-canonical books (Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical) that some claim to belong along side the rest of the universally recognized writings are NOT Scripture. Of course, some want to make a big issue over these books and imply that "they" have the whole Bible unlike those of us who are missing out and, somehow, this proves their claim to be the one, true church. But, we know that God would never make mistakes - of which those extra books contain many such errors - and He would never contradict Himself. The prophets of old whom God used to reveal His sacred word KNEW they were speaking as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. You will find no such assurance from the writers of those seven books - if they are even known (some leave open the identity of the author). That is how we CAN know that the 66 book canon is the correct one and, as such, we CAN have assurance that what God tells us is the truth.

[Boogieman]

“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.”

I think you’ve missed my point. Just because they weren’t using a “66 book Bible” doesn’t mean that their Bible was wrong.

They had a Bible, both before and after the Reformation, that included the same books. Those books, both before and after the Reformation, included some that were never part of the Hebrew canon, and which were clearly delineated from the Old Testament canonical books.

Then, AFTER the Reformation, the Catholics decided to declare those non-canonical books canonical.

So, if anyone decided they were using the “wrong Bible” after 1500 years, it would appear to be the Catholics.

[Seven_0]

You are right. And, because we know that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, we can discern that those extra-canonical books

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

What scripture is this?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm sorry, but some of what you wrote seems historically dubious. May I ask you for a fuller explanation?

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

What? What Pope? Got together with what churches? And "voted" the rest out? When? Who voted and what was the vote?

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

Can you find me a church before, say, 1500 AD that had a 66-book canon? A church, a synod, a council, a bishop, a scholar, anybody? Even Jerome, whose opinion was strongly influenced by the Jewish scholars who excluded the deuterocanonicals (as well as the entire New Testament!!) did not substitute his individual opinion, or the AD Jews' rabbinical opinions, for the actual practice of the churches:

Said Jerome: "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

So Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon would be settled —the judgment of the Church,what was actually used liturgically in the churches, rather than his own judgment or the judgment of Jews who had rejected Christ.

Of course, it's all more complicated than either of us has yet described. St. Jerome translated Tobias and Judith from Chaldean, parts of Esther and Daniel from Greek. Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees he left unchanged from an early Latin version of the Scriptures (the Old Testament which was translated from the Septuagint, and was also called the Italic version).. The Psalms he did translate from Hebrew, but this translation was not popular, and the Clementine Vulgate contains the Old Latin translation corrected by St. Jerome according to the Septuagint.

As for his translation from the Hebrew. A strong argument for favoring the Vulgate over the Masoretic Text seems to me that it is based on pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Vulgate is almost 600 years older than the Masoretic Text.

It's a little equivocal to speak of "the" "Hebrew Canon" (as if there were just one Hebrew Canon) when the Greek LXX, which was translated from the Hebrew --- as was confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls --- was translated from an OLDER Hebrew text than the Masoretic.

St Justin Martyr (AD 100 – 165) supports the Septuagint and claims that the Jews altered their Scriptures to eliminate obvious prophecies of Christ: for instance, the still-debated question of "a virgin shall bear a son" vs. "a young woman shall bear a son" in Isaiah.

[boatbums]

Arguments against the Apocrypha

1. There is not sufficient evidence that they were reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere.

2. The LXX design was literary, to build the library of Ptolemy and the Alexandrians.

3. All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.

4. LXX manuscripts do not all have the same apocryphal books and names.

5. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.

6. The manuscripts at the Dead Sea make it clear no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period.

7. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.

8. Josephus (30-100 AD.), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha; numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.

9. Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.

10. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

11. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.

12. Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha---for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.

14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.

(http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm)

[boatbums]

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

What scripture is this?

Genesis 12:3
I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Genesis 18:18
Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.

Genesis 22:18
and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Genesis 26:4
I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,

Is this what you were asking for?

[Seven_0]

Didn’t Moses pen the first five books?

[chajin]

Looking at my lectionary, the answer is "yes, mostly."

It seems to be not so much on Sundays, but sometimes, particularly the ones I would expect. FWIW, Lutheran Bibles (I'm LCMS) included the 14 books until the churches in the US started using English language Bibles, maybe 100 years ago or so. In 2012 the denomination printed them once again, cf. here. And thank you for a quick response!

[chajin]

Didn’t Moses pen the first five books?

Moses probably didn't have a pen :-) OTOH, Joseph was stuck in the pen for maybe seven years...

[chajin]

action at the counter-Reformation

I was going to join in the counter reformation, but when I saw the price of the granite slabs it was more than my budget could handle, so I stuck with the original linoleum.

(Yes, he's trying to lighten it up here)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Just to take on the last two (since it's suppertime)

13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.

You seem to forget that, while under the influence of rabbinical scholars who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah (a group Jesus called "spiritually blind") Jerome's initial opinion was against the LXX; but he later included the deuterocanonicals in his translation precisely because he did not want to rely on his own opinion, or on rabbinical opinion influenced by their ongoing anti-Christian polemic, but on the actual practice of the church. He went with the texts received and preserved by the churches for liturgical use.

That established a principle: The guiding authority is (1) not your opinion (2) not rabbinical opinion, but (3) the actual practice of the churches.

And that leads directly into your last point:

14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.

That's an unfortunately common misunderstanding of the way texts are recognized as canonical. The Council invented nothing, added nothing and imposed nothing: it confirmed (that's an important key word, "confirmed") the identical list already approved by the Council of Florence (1442), which in turn is the same as the earliest canonical lists extant from the synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century.

This business of something lacking "full canonical status" unless it's confirmed in an Ecumenical Council is a misunderstanding of what a Council does.

Although the Canon wasn't dogmatically defined in an ecumenical council until 1546, it had been first believed by the ancient Christian community (sensus fidelium), then celebrated liturgically, then recognized by local synods, then supported by scholastic argument, and lastly --- many centuries later, and under pressure of controversy by dissenters --- formally defined as a dogma of the Faith.

That, by the way, is the normal course of doctrine: it is first anciently believed based on what was handed down to them; then celebrated; then clarified by argument, then defined. And not the other way around!

Ecumenical Councils are generally prodded into action by dissent, controversy, conflict. There's no particular reason to define things which nobody out there is bug-tussling about. The purpose of the Council is to confirm what has been received by the Church, and by the Church I mean Christendom: by believers East and West going back to Apostolic times.

Toodle-oo!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hmmm... interesting. Now you're talking about 14 books of Apocrypha, and I'm curious what those 14 books would be. In addition, I suppose, to the 7 books called the Deuterocanonicals, which I listed in my previous post, what are the over seven books the LCMS has published?

[Boogieman]

“does any human or group of humans have the authority to declare the definitive canon of Scripture?”

Well, of course, the Church has that authority, given to them by Jesus. To be clear though, I am defining the Church as the Scriptures define it, the universal body of all believers. If half the Church gets together and decides to declare a canon, it can only be valid for their churches, and can’t be expected to be accepted by the rest of the Church.

[caww]

The first attack of the enemy of God is create doubt of God's word.....he used it in the Garden with the first family....He used it in the Wilderness with Jesus himself. If he is successful he's disarmed an individual who will then 'fall' for any lie....and the big one is yet to come.

His tactic is always the same...'create doubt' and in doing so 'destroy faith in God'..and in todays society all the easier for few care to even know the truth let alone seek to find it.

[caww]

The first attack of the enemy of God is create doubt of God's word.....he used it in the Garden with the first family....He used it in the Wilderness with Jesus himself. If he is successful he's disarmed an individual who will then 'fall' for any lie....and the big one is yet to come.

His tactic is always the same...'create doubt' and in doing so 'destroy faith in God'..and in todays society all the easier for few care to even know the truth let alone seek to find it.

[caww]

The first attack of the enemy of God is create doubt of God's word.....he used it in the Garden with the first family....He used it in the Wilderness with Jesus himself. If he is successful he's disarmed an individual who will then 'fall' for any lie....and the big one is yet to come.

His tactic is always the same...'create doubt' and in doing so 'destroy faith in God'..and in todays society all the easier for few care to even know the truth let alone seek to find it.