Is the Bible 'The word of God'?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is the Bible 'The word of God'?

Does it even claim to be 'The word of God'? Where?

Note: Paul/Saul's writings claim that “All Scripture is breathed out by God” in 2 Timothy 3:16. However: 1) The 'scriptures' to which he referred HAD to be Jewish scriptures since the Christian Bible did not exist at that time, 2) 2 Timothy is NOT regarded as authentic Pauline -- no one knows who wrote those words, 3) 'God breathed' is suitably vague to be interpreted however one wishes and does not say that the Bible is the word of God.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (which is regarded as genuine Pauline) he says: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.” That, however, is ONLY a claim that his teaching is 'The word of God' – NOT the Bible / New Testament (which came a couple centuries later).

Thus, two questionable references to Paul/Saul who was developing a new splinter group religion derived from Judaism.

Where else is the claim made – clearly and unambiguously?

[DavidLeon]

Is the Bible 'The word of God'?

Does it even claim to be 'The word of God'? Where?

That's a good question. The answer, I think, is yes and no. I'll explain my answer as I continue my response.

Note: Paul/Saul's writings claim that “All Scripture is breathed out by God” in 2 Timothy 3:16. However: 1) The 'scriptures' to which he referred HAD to be Jewish scriptures since the Christian Bible did not exist at that time

I'll address breathed next, but the part about the Christian Bible not existing is an excellent point. God's word is revealed to the people who write it, not to us. To us it is only an example of his past dealings with those whom he chose to give his word. He directed the accuracy of it. So Moses or Ezra wasn't necessarily dictated to but directed. What we have, a translation of that, isn't inspired.

2) 2 Timothy is NOT regarded as authentic Pauline -- no one knows who wrote those words, 3) 'God breathed' is suitably vague to be interpreted however one wishes and does not say that the Bible is the word of God.

There's no reason to doubt the authenticity of 1 and 2 Timothy. Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius attested to this and they are included in the catalogs of the first few centuries.

When God speaks his word to someone it is breathed or inspired by him. The word spirit comes from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek word pneuma. Pneuma is where the English words pneumonia and pneumatic come from. It conveys the meaning of an unseen force which produces results. For example, breath (Habakkuk 2:19; Revelation 13:15), wind (Exodus 10:13; John 3:8), mental inclination (1 Kings 21:5; Luke 1:17). At Psalm 33:6 "By the word of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made, and by the spirit [or breath] of his mouth all their army."

In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (which is regarded as genuine Pauline) he says: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.” That, however, is ONLY a claim that his teaching is 'The word of God' – NOT the Bible / New Testament (which came a couple centuries later).

Agreed.

[Zzyzx]

.

Note: Paul/Saul's writings claim that “All Scripture is breathed out by God” in 2 Timothy 3:16. However: 1) The 'scriptures' to which he referred HAD to be Jewish scriptures since the Christian Bible did not exist at that time

I'll address breathed next, but the part about the Christian Bible not existing is an excellent point. God's word is revealed to the people who write it, not to us.

Thus, the Bible is the word of PEOPLE writing what they claim they got from God. Right?

When people claim to write what they got from God they MUST be telling the truth. Right? Does that apply to all people writing about all gods – or just certain ones writing about certain gods?

To us it is only an example of his past dealings with those whom he chose to give his word. He directed the accuracy of it. So Moses or Ezra wasn't necessarily dictated to but directed. What we have, a translation of that, isn't inspired.

Is this acknowledging that the Bible used by modern Christians is NOT 'The word of God' as claimed?

2) 2 Timothy is NOT regarded as authentic Pauline -- no one knows who wrote those words, 3) 'God breathed' is suitably vague to be interpreted however one wishes and does not say that the Bible is the word of God.

There's no reason to doubt the authenticity of 1 and 2 Timothy.

Bible scholars and theologians DO question the authenticity of 2 Timothy in particular. We here in internet debate are not likely to be qualified to dismiss scholarly doubts.

Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius attested to this and they are included in the catalogs of the first few centuries.

Can we be assured that Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius writing decades later, knew who wrote 2 Timothy AND that their word as preserved is truthful and accurate?

When God speaks his word to someone it is breathed or inspired by him.

You know this HOW? Someone told you that. Right? Or, do you claim personal knowledge of the process?

In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (which is regarded as genuine Pauline) he says: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.” That, however, is ONLY a claim that his teaching is 'The word of God' – NOT the Bible / New Testament (which came a couple centuries later).

Agreed.

That apparently gets us back to the 'word of God' being nothing more than a couple dubious mentions by Paul/Saul. Right?

[DavidLeon]

Thus, the Bible is the word of PEOPLE writing what they claim they got from God. Right?

Of course. Well . . . I try to be careful because even our words can be misinterpreted. So, I would clarify that by saying the Bible is the fallible, imperfect translation of writers who claimed they were inspired by Jehovah God. Their writing was directed by him. So, when Ezra or Matthew compiled genealogies it wasn't necessarily Jehovah dictating to them this person begat this person etc. It was Jehovah directing their work. Writing, compilation, prophecy etc.

So, someone of antiquity could be a false prophet claiming, wrongfully, to be speaking or writing on behalf of Jehovah when they were not doing so. This is why the Bible itself warns not to believe even the inspired expression (spirit, see previous post) but to test it. (2 Thessalonians 2:2)

When people claim to write what they got from God they MUST be telling the truth. Right?

Now or then? The same would apply to both, I suppose, which I've addressed above. The answer is certainly not.

Does that apply to all people writing about all gods – or just certain ones writing about certain gods?

The answer of certainly not would apply to all.

Is this acknowledging that the Bible used by modern Christians is NOT 'The word of God' as claimed?

Like I said. Yes and no. I would clarify by saying technically, no, but that may depend upon what they mean by the term. Jesus was the word (Greek logos) of God meaning that he was the spokesperson, or representative of his father Jehovah God. He was perfect in this. That means when "God" was walking with Adam in the Garden it was Jesus in his pre-human existence. Or leading the Israelites out of Egypt, wrestling with Jacob. Angels (messengers; spirit form), like Michael, who was Jesus, took on human form sometimes to communicate with man. When doing so they were referred to as "angels," "men," "God," and even "Jehovah."

So the example you gave of Paul telling his readers that what he said was the word of God was him telling them the word of God.

So, the Bible is the fallible, imperfect translation of the word of God that was given to various writers of the Bible. God's word is infallible, the Bible isn't.

Bible scholars and theologians DO question the authenticity of 2 Timothy in particular. We here in internet debate are not likely to be qualified to dismiss scholarly doubts.

Hmmm. As I understand it the Bible isn't an authoritative source in this particular forum. For that I would have to post in the TD&D forum, but that doesn't necessarily mean Bible scholars and theologians are authoritative, correct? You can form an argument on them as infallible but I sure wouldn't do that for my part. We should always question them, and anyone else - including, naturally, myself.

You know . . . present their case as to why they question 2 Timothy, don't just expect me to assume they must be right.

Can we be assured that Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius writing decades later, knew who wrote 2 Timothy AND that their word as preserved is truthful and accurate?

Again . . . I sure wouldn't. But don't weaken your argument by dating them. Just because I read a historian's account of George Washington decades or centuries later doesn't mean his account is questionable. Now if you were to question such a historian on the basis of legend, myth and nationalistic propaganda you would have a stronger case, in my opinion.

You know this HOW? Someone told you that. Right? Or, do you claim personal knowledge of the process?

I don't know much of anything. Someone told me that the Earth is 4.543 billion years old. Do I doubt it? Probably. They weren't there. Not even decades later. Do I know any better? No, I wasn't there either and even if I were I could still make a mistake.

That apparently gets us back to the 'word of God' being nothing more than a couple dubious mentions by Paul/Saul. Right?

Well, no, I wouldn't put it that way. Hey, look, I operate on faith based upon knowledge* and experience. You operate on a lack of faith based upon the same. We have to step outside of ourselves, in a sense, to do that effectively in a debate. So, can you do that and show me where there is good reason to doubt whoever wrote the Bible wasn't inspired by Jehovah God?

* Knowledge meaning to know by being told (i.e. educated, instructed), or to know by observing, or to know by personal acquaintance or experience i.e. to be experienced, skillful.

[Difflugia]

There's no reason to doubt the authenticity of 1 and 2 Timothy.

I'm not sure if that's hyperbole or you mean it literally. If you are actually aware of the reasons, but don't find them compelling, that's a rather different discussion than if you are unaware that anyone has expressed reasons for doubt in the first place.

Assuming the latter, here is a brief rundown:

• The vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) reflects a single author, but is significantly different than that of the other Pauline epistles.
• The theological issues raised and the church structure presented in the Pastorals seem to apply to the early second century after Paul's death rather than the mid first century during Paul's lifetime.
• Events in the Pastorals are difficult to reconcile with the timeline of Acts.

A month or so ago, I posted some links to readily available sources that discuss problems with Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. Bart Ehrman's book Forged is available for digital checkout at the Internet Archive and has a discussion of the Pastorals that begins on page 93. If you have access to either The New Oxford Annotated Bible or The HarperCollins Study Bible, the introductions offer a good overview of the subject. A relevant paragraph from Oxford's Introduction:

The conclusion that these three epistles were not written by Paul is based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria. First and Second Timothy and Titus share a common Greek vocabulary and style that diverges in many ways from the other Pauline epistles. Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century CE when Paul was no longer alive. It is possible to see how some passages may have been written to explain or definitively interpret passages in the authentic letters already in circulation (such as 1 Tim 2.9–19; cf. 1 Cor 14.33–36). Theologically these letters minimize or lack characteristic Pauline themes (such as justification by faith, and the church as the body of Christ) in favor of a new emphasis on adherence to tradition and regulation as signs of the Christian piety they seek to inculcate in their readers. Although Timothy and Titus had been Paul’s trusted co-workers for decades, the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Titus present the recipients as needing basic instructions for community leadership. They represent a bridge between the apostle and later generations. Second Timothy is less concerned with regulating the life of the Christian communities than Titus and 1 Timothy. It has been described as a “testament,” the last words of the apostle to a close associate. It looks forward to the difficulties facing Timothy and others after Paul’s death with foreboding, and bears some similarity to the Paul’s genuine letter to the Philippians in this regard.

[JehovahsWitness]

• The vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) reflects a single author, but is significantly different than that of the other Pauline epistles.

This is because the letters to Titus and Timothy were personal letters to intimate acquaintances while most of Paul's other letters were public letters for general circulation amongst the Christian community dealing with doctrinal or organisational issues.

To illustrate Does a man use the same phraseology speaking of confidential matters at night to his wife as he does at a board meeting at work? Is it not reasonable to conclude that the different circumstances and material are enough to explain any superficial difference in vocabulary? Or should we conclude that since he never ONCE used the phrase "my cuddle bunny" at work we should doubt he is the same person?

Logic,


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Events in the Pastorals are difficult to reconcile with the timeline of Acts.

Which events are you refering to and what specific chronological difficulties do they raise?


JW

[RJG]

Much of the Bible reads like a not very credible work of fiction, written by very human authors with no input from a god, which more than likely doesn't exist.

[Difflugia]

• The vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) reflects a single author, but is significantly different than that of the other Pauline epistles.

This is because the letters to Titus and Timothy were personal letters to intimate acquaintances while most of Paul's other letters were public letters for general circulation amongst the Christian community dealing with doctrinal or organisational issues.

Though perhaps seductive if one is unfamiliar with scholarship on the Pastorals, your assertion (if you were to support it, it might become an argument) is specious at best. That topic is addressed in a very accessible way by the discussion in Bart Ehrman's Forged that I mentioned in the previous post. In summary, the Pastorals use a large number of words and phrases otherwise unknown in the Pauline Epistles, but that are common in extant writings from the early church that date to the second century. Furthermore, a number of words or phrases that do occur in the genuine Paulines are given different meanings by the author of the Pastorals. The discussion is longer than I'm comfortable quoting from a work still in copyright (more than half of chapter 3, pp. 93-105 in the printed edition), but the book is available at Internet Archive for checkout (with no waitlists because of school and library lockdowns). Please read at least those 13 pages.

Logic,

If that was an appeal to one of the Muses for inspiration, I don't think she heard you.

[Difflugia]

Events in the Pastorals are difficult to reconcile with the timeline of Acts.

Which events are you refering to and what specific chronological difficulties do they raise?

In short, none of the events described in the Pastorals can have happened within the timeline of Acts. No trip to Ephesus matching 1 Timothy or Titus appears in Acts and the imprisonment that is the subject of 2 Timothy doesn't match any of the prison narratives in Acts.

The common apologetic argument is that the events of all three Pastorals occurred after the end of Acts. Most scholars, however, conclude (for literary and other reasons) that Acts ends shortly before Paul's execution. There is an excellent and detailed discussion in this book from 1899. Following the explanation, that particular book offers apologetic arguments for why there may have been more to Paul's story after the end of Acts. This may offer you something to start with, but I personally don't find them compelling. As the description of the overall problem is quite thorough, however, it should at least bring you up to speed on that portion of the argument.

For what it's worth, I think that the comparison with Acts is the least compelling argument against Pauline authorship, anyway, since I think Acts is primarily fiction based on the Pauline epistles in the first place. If the author of Acts didn't have access to the Pastorals, then there's no particular reason that they should fit within the narrative of Acts. On the other hand, if the author of Acts didn't, in fact, have the Pastorals, then that itself suggests that the Pastorals might have been written later than Acts.