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.)

[chajin]

Now you're talking about 14 books of Apocrypha, and I'm curious what those 14 books would be

http://www.cph.org/pdf/012065.pdf

[caww]

.....”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”.....

That statement should give food for thought.

[ealgeone]

The Cristian Church recognizes a collection of 73 books. This author seems a little weak on the historic Christian canon.

Nope....the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 73 books. Christians recognize 66.

You did get one part right...about being weak on the historic Christian canon.

[avenir]

I never get tired of hearing that.

[ealgeone]

Those who take themselves out of "Catholic," take themselves out of the Canon.

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"?

The Holy Spirit has not abandoned anyone...however, the RCC has abandoned the Holy Spirit....so yes..the RCC has been in error for 1500 years.

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

And just who gave the RCC the "authority" to add books to the Bible?? Some council??

And if that's something the British throne and her licensed liturgists in the Anglican Church had the competence to do, do they still have it? Could Queen Elizabeth II and Abp Justin Welby split off a couple more books if they felt divinely called to do so?

Or, instead of 1500 years, switch your focus to 2,000 years. The big majority of Catholics still have the full canon --- 73 books. Had to fix that for you...Christians have 66 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. I think it's a good bet that they're clinging to their whole Bible as they high-tail it outta there --- as we speak. If the ISIS couldn't make them give it up, I very much doubt the Anglicans would be very persuasive.

[ealgeone]

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.

Try Luke 11:51. Jesus said,"from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah...."

With this statement Jesus was saying the Old Testament is from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. In the Hebrew Bible Genesis is the first book and 2 Chronicles is the last.

No books of the apocrypha are in the Hebrew Bible as they were not accepted by the Hebrews. Even the early church fathers rejected the apocrypha(just for you catholics).

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?

Actually the early church did have the right books for about the first 400 years or so...these being 27 NT and 39 OT (depending on how you count them).

Jerome did include the apocrypha in his Vulgate. However, he included a prologue before each one noting each one as apocryphal or non-canon. Jerome did not want to include these in his translation, but was forced to.

The apocrypha were never accorded the same status as the other books of the Bible. It was only at the council of Trent that the RCC declared the catholic version of the bible with the apocrypha to be dogma.

So to your point...from about 400 AD to the council of Trent it is quite possible people held the wrong books of the Bible.

By 400 AD, and you could make an argument for an earlier time period, the early church had already agreed upon the 27 books of the NT we have today.

It is possible for error to exist for a long period of time. Consider the words of Satan to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Consider the words of Satan to Jesus in the desert.

Satan's number one way of attacking Christianity has been to attack and distort the Word of God. This is why it is so important to interpret the texts of the Bible in their proper context and not to read into them something that isn't there.

Sadly, the RCC has practiced a lot of the latter.

[Boogieman]

“What? What Pope?”

Well, it was 3 popes actually, since the entire process took a few decades. Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV.

“Got together with what churches?”

The ones who opposed the Reformation, most representatives were from Italy and Spain. Those who supported the Reformation were invited to attend, but refused the right to vote.

“And “voted” the rest out? When? Who voted and what was the vote?”

In 1563, at the conclusion of the Council of Trent. 255 attendees (of those who were allowed to vote of course) declared the Protestants heretics.

“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.”

Yet, there is a big difference between the “judgement of the churches” and “judgement of the Church”. The churches used various arrangements of books, as there was no agreed upon Old Testament canon at that point. So, when he translated the Vulgate, he included all the books that were commonly in use by various churches, with his disclaimer that some of these books were not to be taken as authoritative for spiritual doctrine. He did not have, or declare, a “judgement of the Church” - say, an official proclamation from an ecumenical council - that told him those books were canonical for the whole Church.

Just because Jerome included them in the Vulgate tells us nothing of their canonicity, even though the Pope authorized that translation. For example, there were other works included in the Vulgate that nobody today, or in Jerome’s day believed to be inspired, such as the Epistle to the Laodicians. Jerome said of that work, “it is rejected by everyone” - so much for “judgement of the churches”!

“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.”

Well, if you don’t like the phrase “Hebrew Canon”, let’s just say “Hebrew Scriptures”. Whether the Jews have altered the text they currently use from the ancient form or not, at least they have a genuine provenance for their documents from ancient Hebrew manuscripts, unlike the Apocrypha.

That’s not a small point either. We know that the last prophets wrote around the 5th century BC, and that Hebrew was still the only language being used in sacred documents at that time. Even after Aramaic, then Greek became the common languages of everyday life, Hebrew was retained as the only sacred language for liturgy. If these documents were composed originally in Greek, then that puts them at a very late date, probably centuries after the last prophets of Israel.

[CodeToad]

No matter: It conveys the message from God.

[boatbums]

Didn’t Moses pen the first five books?

Whatever Moses wrote in those books, he did by the same Holy Spirit inspiration as all the other prophets of the Lord. There is no way Moses could have known all the things that Genesis, for example, relates except by the leading of the Holy Spirit. He wasn't there at the start of creation or in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve walked with God. Moses lived nearly a thousand years AFTER Abraham walked the earth. Just as the Holy Spirit moved the writers of the New Testament books to write about things they could not have known about personally (i.e., what Jesus prayed in the garden the night He was betrayed), so that same process went on for the writers of the books in the Old Testament. It is because the Holy Spirit was working in these prophets, we can have assurance of the things we are told in Scripture and trust in things God has made known to us through His sacred word.

[Mr. Lucky]

You have company.

[mlo]

"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 having to kill witches, or having multiple wives, or slaves, or not eating bacon, or killing your child for denying god, etc., etc.

The point being, that even the most ardent, "the Bible is the word of god" posters here, pick and choose what parts they accept. Thank god.

[jjotto]

Moses wrote scrolls shortly before his death. That was some 40 years after the experience at Sinai.

Obviously there was communication from God without a book.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

sadly, church history does not seem to be your strong point.

you say the church for the first 400 years had a 66 book bible. really? please provide one canon of scripture during this time period that lists 66 books. i’ll save you time, one doesn’t exist.

the OT used by St Paul contained these books, and they have always been used by the Catholic Church.

some ancient churches broke away from the Catholic Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, such as the Coptics and Oriental Orthodox. here is a history homework assignment for you, do they have a 66 book canon?

I do agree that Satan attacks Christianity by attacking the Word of God, but also the authority of the Church. Sadly, in the 16th century, by claiming the Bible was wrong and the Church was wrong, he did great damage to Christianity.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

funny, Jesus spoke of His Church, singular. I didn’t realize there could be more than one Church, certainly the Scriptures only speak of one Church.

[caww]

His Church is made up of ‘all’ those believers who have given their life to Christ for Salvation......but some have difficulty in distinguishing between ‘His House’ and theirs.

[caww]

..."It is because the Holy Spirit was working in these prophets, we can have assurance of the things we are told in Scripture and trust in things God has made known to us through His sacred word."......

Amen and again Amen.....and it's not a question..it's 'knowing ' why they were written and given

[ealgeone]

Me thinks you need to do some reading. I’m not going to do something you are capable of doing yourself. It’s pretty easy research I’ve already done. You may find the NT was in place before 200 AD. I’ll let you do the rest.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

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

“some claim to belong....” LOL, WHO IS THIS SOME? well, only all of Christendom for the first 1,500 years of Church History. funny how no one could “discern” that these books weren’t Scripture, yet we are assured that its obvious they aren’t. SERIOUSLY?? Think of the arrogance contained in that statement. The whole Universal Church, led to all truth by the Holy Spirit, could not see these books were not Scripture. Think what that says about God, He is unable to keep His Word pure. So if the early Church could not correctly understand the OT canon, we can have no assurance they got the 27 book NT canon correct, can we?
of course the Bible wasn’t the only object of the 16th century inventions, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, sacred tradition , unity of the Church and a whole host of other doctrines all came under assault.

how far this is from the prayer of Jesus in John 17.

how far this is from Paul’s command to the Corinthians to be of one mind and all agree in doctrine.

[Cvengr]

Perform a word study.

There are reasons why these particular words are used and not others.

There also are reasons why our Lord Christ Jesus is also identified with other names.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

lol, nice deflection.

there were no 66 book bibles before the 16th century. PERIOD.

END OF DISCUSSION.

If someone wants to believe that NO ONE had an accurate Bible before the 16th century, well, there is not much anyone can really do for such a person other than pray for them.
I suspect such a person also believes many other things that no one believed before the 16th century, but that’s a whole other story, isn’t it?