Is the Bible equal to GOD?

[William]

Sometimes in interacting with Christians and observing Christians interacting with each other, I get the impression that what they refer to as 'the word of God' is GOD because it is the only thing on earth that is claimed by them to 'speak for, or on God's behalf' and they use their preferred interpretations of it to argue against other, differing interpretations.

Q: Is it right to treat a man-made object in this manner, or should such be considered - in truth - to be a form of idolatry?

Q: Is the bible used in this manner because people do not know how to commune with GOD any other way?

Q: Is GOD incapable of communion with individuals without the use of mediums, or is it a matter of most humans being incapable of communion with GOD without the use of mediums?

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by brianbbs67]

When was the Bible first considered the inerring word of God?

I don't suppose it matters. The fact that so many claim that it is, even when it does not claim any such thing, is the subject of interest.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 48 by jgh7]

Like I said previously, the relationship comes through the Holy Spirit. And if your entire premise from the beginning of this thread was that the bible is false, then you posted this in the wrong subforum.

Well if one is to jump into threads as you have obviously done here without reading the posts prior, what point is there in me continuing to repeat myself?
Either address what I am actually saying or cease making posts at all, but please refrain from making straw-man arguments.

I did read prior posts before jumping in, and I couldn't see strong logic in any of it but still wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I feel as though I have responded exactly to what you are saying. If you feel they are strawmans, then point out how they are. I understand your sentiment about how annoying it is to repeat oneself, and it frustrates me that after only a few posts with you I already have to repeat our back and forth to show you what has occurred.

You asserted that the bible is nothing more than an artifact and need not be called the word of God if someone already knows God directly. I then posed my "dad's biography" comparison. Your response to that was to question whether it was an accurate biography at all and whether I knew my dad or just an idea of him from the biography. I responded to both of those by saying that if we assume the bible is false, then this is the wrong subforum to do so. And that it is not the bible which we have a relationship with, but the Holy Spirit which connects us to God. And having a relationship with God in no way renders his book uneccessary or makes it not be the word of God.

All you've done in this last post is complain to me for not understanding you and accuse me of strawmaning you without showing how it was done.

[William]

[Replying to post 52 by jgh7]

You asserted that the bible is nothing more than an artifact and need not be called the word of God if someone already knows God directly.

I asserted that the bible being referred to as "the word of GOD" was a symptom of idolatry and that those who make the claim are practicing idolatry.

That is what idols are used for. As mediums between humans and their ideas of GOD. Creating an artifact which can 'speak' supposed words of GOD is the practice of idolization.

I then posed my "dad's biography" comparison. Your response to that was to question whether it was an accurate biography at all and whether I knew my dad or just an idea of him from the biography.

What I wrote was this;

It depends upon whether the biography about your dad was correct does it not? You might find that what you read or were told by others about your dad has very little to do with your dad. Are you able to have a relationship with your dad based on a biography which might not even be true? Or is your relationship actually only with with the imagery the biography/what others have said about your dad which were instilled within your psyche and believed by you to truly represent your dad?

...which also had a couple of question for you in relation to your analogy of the biography.

Your reply;

Like I said previously, the relationship comes through the Holy Spirit. And if your entire premise from the beginning of this thread was that the bible is false, then you posted this in the wrong subforum.

The part in bold I have emphasized as my reason for asking you to read the whole thread. This accusation has been tried on by two posters already, and in both cases I have explained why the accusation is false.

Now you reply saying;

I did read prior posts before jumping in...

Well then you haven't understood.

I responded to both of those by saying that if we assume the bible is false, then this is the wrong subforum to do so.

If you have understood my previous arguments to do with this you would be able to see that having a relationship with an idea of a GOD through the medium of a book (or 'biography of your dad' as you put it) is idolatry. It is the claim made by some Christians that the bible is 'the word of GOD' which I am questioning, not whether what the bible says is 'true' or 'false'. I am questioning what some Christians claim.

Your analogy of the bible being like unto a 'biography' of a dad gave cause for me to try and show you how having a relationship with a person through the imagery the biography/things people say about that person is not having a relationship with that person at all.

Rather than answer that, you have chosen to use my reply to jack up the accusation I am posting in the wrong forum - charges I have already previously explained are erroneous.

And that it is not the bible which we have a relationship with, but the Holy Spirit which connects us to God.

So lets examine this. As I have said in previous replies, if one is connected with GOD, there is no need for any medium.
So please explain if you are able to;

Q: Where in your 'dad's biography' analogy, would the Holy Ghost fit? The analogy appears to have left the HG out.

And having a relationship with God in no way renders his book unnecessary or makes it not be the word of God.

See my question above.

As I already said in post #47

You might find that what you read or were told by others about your dad has very little to do with your dad.

Also, please answer the questions I have already put forward to you, regarding your biography analogy. I have included these at the end of the post for your convenience.


Q: Are you able to have a relationship with your dad based on a biography which might not even be true?

Q: Or is your relationship actually only with with the imagery the biography/what others have said about your dad which were instilled within your psyche and believed by you to truly represent your dad?

[jgh7]

Q: Where in your 'dad's biography' analogy, would the Holy Ghost fit? The analogy appears to have left the HG out.

Q: Are you able to have a relationship with your dad based on a biography which might not even be true?

Q: Or is your relationship actually only with with the imagery the biography/what others have said about your dad which were instilled within your psyche and believed by you to truly represent your dad?

1) I don't know how the Holy Ghost fits in with the analogy except to say that it's more akin to actually seeing and interacting with my dad rather than reading a biography about him.

2) No. If the biography is false (aka the bible is false) then I can not have a relationship with my dad solely through the biography.

And no again. If the biography is true, then in my opinion I still cannot have a relationship with my dad solely through the biography. For me, a relationship involves interaction between the two individuals, not simply reading about them. The same with Christianity. I believe one has a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.

However if someone wishes to define relationship merely as their perceptions and actions towards another, then so long as the bible is true then one can have a relationship with God through the bible.

3) No. For me the relationship comes from interacting with my dad. Likewise, a relationship with God comes through the interactions we have with Him. None of this would suddenly render the bible useless and unecessary in learning about God however.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 49 by brianbbs67]

When was the Bible first considered the inerring word of God?

I don't suppose it matters. The fact that so many claim that it is, even when it does not claim any such thing, is the subject of interest.

I looked a little. The Torah is considered the word of God. The rest, not as sure. The New testament didn't exist when it happened. However, the thought that its inerring, was never brought up. So, be good do good. And the rest will follow.

[William]

[Replying to post 54 by jgh7]

1) I don't know how the Holy Ghost fits in with the analogy except to say that it's more akin to actually seeing and interacting with my dad rather than reading a biography about him.

So in that, one can discard the biography and simply have the relationship.

2) No. If the biography is false (aka the bible is false) then I can not have a relationship with my dad solely through the biography.

So in that, one can discard the alleged biography and simply have the relationship.

And no again. If the biography is true, then in my opinion I still cannot have a relationship with my dad solely through the biography.

Either way, there is no need for the biography if one can simply have a direct relationship.

For me, a relationship involves interaction between the two individuals, not simply reading about them. The same with Christianity. I believe one has a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, there is nothing to stop anyone from having a relationship. Christianity does not make that possible. The individual and GOD make that possible. Religion is just another form of idolatry which convinces the believing adherent that the religion is set up by the GOD in order that the religion (and its writ) is the medium between GOD and the individual. In reality, it does not work that way.

However if someone wishes to define relationship merely as their perceptions and actions towards another, then so long as the bible is true then one can have a relationship with God through the bible.

Unnecessary and a plea to idolatry. The above statement simply tries to justify the medium as applicable to relationship between GOD and the individual while in contradiction to previous statements that no thing is required for relationship to happen between GOD and the individual.

If one is having a relationship with GOD, there is no need to also have to decide "IF the bible is true" because the question itself becomes irrelevant. Indeed, one can suppose that one's relationship is genuine because one has no object acting as a medium between the individual and GOD.

3) No. For me the relationship comes from interacting with my dad. Likewise, a relationship with God comes through the interactions we have with Him. None of this would suddenly render the bible useless and unecessary in learning about God however.

While writ might have its uses, one cannot claim therefore that only certain writ is applicable, but even in that, a relationship with GOD and the learning of GOD therein, does not require any writ. One learns about GOD through having the actual relationship directlywith GOD. Therein, one is also able to ascertain what writ will be erroneous, by comparing ones relationship with GOD and the knowledge of GOD (learning about GOD) through that direct relationship with the claims of the writ, and any dependency in any writ will therefore be obvious.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 56 by William]

I am jumping here because don't know what to do.
Has this website half closed? 'Not allowed' on many, want to join 'scriptures' but can't get in.
I find it impossible to navigate.
Best to all.

[showme]

Sometimes in interacting with Christians and observing Christians interacting with each other, I get the impression that what they refer to as 'the word of God' is GOD because it is the only thing on earth that is claimed by them to 'speak for, or on God's behalf' and they use their preferred interpretations of it to argue against other, differing interpretations.

Q: Is it right to treat a man-made object in this manner, or should such be considered - in truth - to be a form of idolatry?

Q: Is the bible used in this manner because people do not know how to commune with GOD any other way?

Q: Is GOD incapable of communion with individuals without the use of mediums, or is it a matter of most humans being incapable of communion with GOD without the use of mediums?

Let us just take a small example from the NT. Luke 1:1-3 which states from an unknown author, who apparently takes on the name of Luke, who is supposedly an associate of the false prophet Paul, who writes down stories taken from unnamed sources, and somehow becomes holy on the authority of the canon produced by some Roman Catholic bishop in the year 367, whose authority came from the Roman emperor Constantine, the beast with two horns like a lamb, whose authority came from the "dragon" (Revelation 13:4). Sounds good to me. I might add, the canon came from the pagan Easter feast festal letter in the year 367 AD by Athanasius, who was a major proponent of the pagan Trinity dogma at the Nicene Council in the year 325 AD.

[showme]

[Replying to post 51 by William]

[Replying to post 49 by brianbbs67]


Quote:
When was the Bible first considered the inerring word of God?


I don't suppose it matters. The fact that so many claim that it is, even when it does not claim any such thing, is the subject of interest.

That statement is a little misleading. When Yeshua referred to the OT/Scripture, he said it couldn't be broken. John 10:35

New American Standard Bible John 10:35
"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

[William]

This;

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

Q: If Biblical scholars disagree on many theological points how can we know what the truth is?

Ask God (pray) and don't stop asking until you find the help you need. Be humble enough to accept help from the people who take a personal interst in helping you individually at great cost to themselves by approaching you and offering to help you understand the bible .

...is precisely what I am speaking to in regard to mediums between individuals and GOD and how those mediums become substitutes for actual relationship between GOD and the individual. The advice above recommends medium-ship instead of direct communion. As advice, it is erroneous, although it does serve to fill a gap in the psyches of those whom invest in such practice, as they lack trust in themselves which they then bestow onto others. Also, it provides an enabling opportunity for those who
enjoy being the ones who are followed. The system is open to and rife with abuse.