Which parts of the Bible are the Word of God?

[Elijah John]

Which parts of the Bible are the "Word of God". How much of it?

Did God bind the Bible in it's entirety from cover to cover, and proclaim, "THIS is my word"? If so, what is your evidence for this? If so, which version, which canon of the Bible is the entire, verbatim Word of God?

The Hebrew Bible?
The Roman Catholic version?
The Orthodox version?
or the Protestant version?

[JehovahsWitness]

AUTHORSHIP

Who is the AUTHOR of the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 32#p885132

What evidence is there that the bible is the word of God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p972418

Can you trust the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1059125#p1059125

What does it mean that the bible is "inspired of God"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p867965

What evidence do we have as to WHO penned the gospels?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 47#p338347

Would God's use of human "secretaries" to write the bible not have corrupted it from its start?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p833783

ALSO SEE Biblical Inerrancy
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p852183

CONTENT

Why do we need a bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1108356#p1108356

Are all parts of the bible equal?
viewtopic.php?p=781997#p781997

Who do bible writers claim gave them the words they penned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p840508

How does the content of the bible prove its divine origin?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 55#p840255

Are bible prophecies specific and can any be proven to have been fulfilled?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 59#p337759

Is the bible literally all true?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p868428

COMPILATION

How was the bible compiled?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 32#p838732

Did the Catholic Church compile the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 66#p838566

TRANSMISSION

#Can we know what the original scriptures contained since we don't have the originals?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p851803

What evidence do we have that the bible has been accurately TRANSMITTED throughout the ages?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p972419

Does the idea of a Great Apostacy negate the authenticity of the bible canon? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1045515#p1045515

Did the bible really fight to survive?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p820878

Have bible truth always been freely available?
viewtopic.php?p=1021307#p1021307

If the bible HAD been inrrevocably compromised, would that negate God's existence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 57#p833457

BIBLICAL INTEGRITY

Has the bible been contaminated with human error?
viewtopic.php?p=979422#p979422

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BIBLE AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

* bible interpretation[/quote]

[Checkpoint]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 371#972371]Replying to post 1 by Elijah John[/url

Certainly not the Christian testament. No where does it say God said or said God. The writers knew better than to say God said something when he didn't. But it does it's best to imply it. Oh the heavenly voice... If it was God they'd have said it. But that's what people want it to be.

That which ye hear in the ear preach from the rooftops
or
What I tell you in darkness speak ye in light

He that hath ears to hear let them hear...

I heard what the Christian testament says: it's the religion that let's man hear what he wants to hear. Through that God knows your heart. And what have Christians revealed:. God...we don't want nothing to do with you. Lay off of us with the laws. But kill yourself on the cross so we can live forever and continue ignoring you. Will you do it again for us in the next world.? We hope so. We really love pig. That's why we listen to unknown authors of a book not to mention that guy from Tarsus -Paul. If I listen to them I get to do what I want plus eat my bacon. Why we even eat it on our most religious holidays. We have many great foods you've provided but what's a slap in the face to you after being hung up to die. Remember now:. Save us.
HEAR!!! HEAR!!

You heard what the Christian testament says?

What you related was a caricature of that, and, even more so, of Christians.

Thanks. It was a blessing.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

You often hear jees say that? Yeah, Messianic Jews maybe. But they aren't Jews. They just want to wear the clothes and call Jesus yeshua.

Really?

They aren't Jews?

And who is this "jees"?

[Elijah John]

We Jehovah's Witnesses* accept the entire 66 books of the bible canon as the word of God.

Why the 66? That is something JWs have inherited from the Protestants. That is the Protestant canon.

Or did Jehovah declare the Protestant canon valid, and not the others? Where? How?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

You often hear jees say that? Yeah, Messianic Jews maybe. But they aren't Jews. They just want to wear the clothes and call Jesus yeshua.

Really?

They aren't Jews?

If they worship Jesus as God and consider him the Messiah they are Christians, not Jews. They are in violation of Sh'ma by adopting Trinitarian.

[Elijah John]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 371#972371]Replying to post 1 by Elijah John[/url

Certainly not the Christian testament.

What about the part of the New Testament where Jesus affirms Sh'ma? It's in the earliest Gospel, Mark. Isn't the Sh'ma part of the Word of God?

I heard what the Christian testament says: it's the religion that let's man hear what he wants to hear. Through that God knows your heart. And what have Christians revealed:. God...we don't want nothing to do with you. Lay off of us with the laws. But kill yourself on the cross so we can live forever and continue ignoring you. Will you do it again for us in the next world.? We hope so. We really love pig. That's why we listen to unknown authors of a book not to mention that guy from Tarsus -Paul. If I listen to them I get to do what I want plus eat my bacon. Why we even eat it on our most religious holidays. We have many great foods you've provided but what's a slap in the face to you after being hung up to die. Remember now:. Save us.
HEAR!!! HEAR!!

Also, I think you labor under some misconceptions regarding Christianity. Just because Christians don't accept the dietary laws of Judaism, does not mean they are lawless. The RCC for example, teaches the 10 Commandments to children. And even Paul admonishes Christians to live ethical lives and adhere to the laws of love, of God and neighbor. It's the ceremonial and ritual purity laws which Paul discards , not the moral law.

But I agree, it is in bad taste that many Christians make it a point to eat ham on Easter Sunday. That seems like flaunting Christian freedom. I don't think many Christians think about that, however, or wonder why ham is traditional at Easter. I see it as an unintentional and mild form of anti-Semitism a vestige of more divisive times. I for one, would be happy to see that tradition fade away. I don't like pork anyway.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

You often hear jees say that? Yeah, Messianic Jews maybe. But they aren't Jews. They just want to wear the clothes and call Jesus yeshua.

Really?

They aren't Jews?

If they worship Jesus as God and consider him the Messiah they are Christians, not Jews. They have violated Sh'ma by becoming Trinitarian.

If they are Jews by blood, then they are Jews, regardless of belief.

One can certainly be both a Christian (an anointed one) and a Jew. The apostles were both Jews and Christians, and the first Christians were also Jews, etc.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

You often hear jees say that? Yeah, Messianic Jews maybe. But they aren't Jews. They just want to wear the clothes and call Jesus yeshua.

Really?

They aren't Jews?

If they worship Jesus as God and consider him the Messiah they are Christians, not Jews. They have violated Sh'ma by becoming Trinitarian.

If they are Jews by blood, then they are Jews, regardless of belief.

One can certainly be both a Christian (an anointed one) and a Jew. The apostles were both Jews and Christians, and the first Christians were also Jews, etc.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

The apostles were not "Jews for Jesus" as the movement is today. The modern movement worships Jesus as God. There is no evidence that Jesus taught anyone to do so, or that the apostles considered Jesus to be God.

In fact, Paul's apostolic salutations, 1 Timothy 2.5 and John 17.3 are all verses and evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, one can be a Jew by blood, an ethnic Jew. But if that person adopts Trinitarian theology, they become cut off from the Jewish community and Judaism as a religion. Judaism does not teach that "Jesus is God". Judaism does not even recognize Jesus as a prophet.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

Even if your calculations and sources are accurate, how do you know what the NT writers originally wrote was the truth, verbatim, and the Word of God?

The NT could just as easily be well preserved error and heresy.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]



SHOULD THE APOCRYPHA BE PART OF THE BIBLE CANON?

The Books called the Apocrypha consist of 14 books originally attached to the Greek Old Testament that were not in the Hebrew-written Bible. The Catholic church presently accepts seven of the original 14 apocryphal books, as part of their biblical canon referring to them as the deuterocanonical books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees. The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical is attributed primarily to Augustine (354-430 C.E.), but opinion continued to be divided on the matter as evidenced by the fact that Roman Catholic Church Council of Trent (1545-1563) saw the need to finalize the issue dropping three (The Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras) that had appeared for over 1,100 years in the approved Latin Vulgate.

Catholics argue that since these books were included in the Septuagint which dates from the 4th century BCE and was available when Jesus and the Christian writers were alive, these should be viewed as inspired. However, it cannot be stated categorically that the Apocryphal books were originally included and there is evidence against the canonicity of the Apocryphal.


THE JEWS DID NOT ACCEPT THE APOCRYPHA AS PART OF THE SACRED WRITINGS

• The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today. Neither the Great Synagogue of the Palestinian Jews nor Philo (leading first-century Jewish apologist) recognised the Apocrypha as part of the sacred writings.

“There are not with us myriads of books, discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty* comprising the history of all time, which are justly accredited...From the time of Artaxerxes up to our own everything has been recorded, but the records have not been accounted equally worthy of credit with those written before them, because the exact succession of prophets ceased.�​—Against Apion, Book I, par. 8 (according to the translation in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 163).

EARLY CHRISTIAN LEADERS: JEROME

“Thus there are twenty-two books* . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.� - Prologus Galeatus to the Vulgate

"... [the apocrypha] contain much that is faulty, and . . . it is a task requiring great prudence to find gold in the midst of clay" Epistle to Laeta (McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopædia, Vol. 1, p. 290)

PRESENT DAY ACADEMIC OPINION

• “They have not had the sanction of the Jewish and the early Christian Church; . . . are wholly wanting in the prophetic spirit. . . ; not only do not claim inspiration but bewail the want of it; are characterized in many passages by an air of romance and mythology alien to the simple grandeur of the Bible; contradict themselves and some well-known facts of secular history; teach doctrines not contained in the Bible. . . ; and appear never to have been quoted as an authority by the Lord or his apostles.â€�— Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Abbott, pp. 50, 51.
  
  
  They are completely lacking in the prophetic element. Their contents and teachings at times contradict those of the canonical books and are also contradictory within themselves. They are rife with historical and geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms. The writers in some cases are guilty of dishonesty in falsely representing their works as those of earlier inspired writers. They show themselves to be under pagan Greek influence, and at times resort to an extravagance of language and literary style wholly foreign to the inspired Scriptures. Two of the writers imply that they were not inspired. (See the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 2 Maccabees 2:24-32; 15:38-40, Dy.) Thus, it may be said that the best evidence against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha itself. - Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1 p. 122
  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/120 ... p=par#h=15