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?

[Divine Insight]

If we talking about the God of the Bible, (i.e. YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jealous, or Jesus), then the Bible is the only source of information we have about that God. Not only this, but at the very least, the Biblical God must necessarily have done and said everything attributed to him in the Bible. Otherwise why claim that we're talking about the Biblical God?

Now if you want to speak about some other "GOD", whatever you imagine that might be. Then it's entirely up to you to explain how is it that you know about the existence o f this "Other God". You would need to then point to your source of information concerning this other God.

In any case, if you are going to claim that this "other God" is also the same as the Biblical God, then you're back to square one again where the Biblical God must have done and said everything the Bible describes. Otherwise why call it the Biblical God?

So yes, when we're talking about the Biblical God the Bible is equal to God in terms of describing what God is like in what he has commanded men to do, and what he has himself done, etc.

People try to claim additional personal information they supposedly "know" about the Biblical God. Some people even claim to "know" the Biblical God themselves, often as Jesus. But it's up to them to show how they have obtained this additional information about this God. Most people who claim to "know" God have different opinions off what God is like. So there is no consistency in the claims that people make when they claim to know God. The probability is extremely high that they are deluding themselves and simply hoping that a God exists that they can personally offer their seal of approval to.

So yes, if we're talking about the Biblical God, then the Bible must necessarily describe God correctly. Otherwise what's the point in calling the God "The Biblical God", if we're not going to accept what the Bible has to say about him?

And if we're talking about some other God then we need to demonstrate how we know about this other God.

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

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?

If we talking about the God of the Bible, (i.e. YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jealous, or Jesus), then the Bible is the only source of information we have about that God. Not only this, but at the very least, the Biblical God must necessarily have done and said everything attributed to him in the Bible. Otherwise why claim that we're talking about the Biblical God?

So yes, when we're talking about the Biblical God the Bible is equal to God in terms of describing what God is like in what he has commanded men to do, and what he has himself done, etc.

So yes, if we're talking about the Biblical God, then the Bible must necessarily describe God correctly. Otherwise what's the point in calling the God "The Biblical God", if we're not going to accept what the Bible has to say about him?

The idea the OP is investigating is whether the bible is a type of idol which people worship in the manner of paying heed to as something claimed to be 'the word of GOD'.

You arguments seem to be focused on the idea that GOD is the biblical God, but the OP purposefully does not focus on that proposition. It focuses on GOD as an Entity which can commune with individuals without the props of idols, (or mediums in general) and specifically questions whether the bible is an idol in relation to the way Christians use it.

Your post therefore, is on another tangent, not specific to the OP blurb.

What I do see in your reply though - relevant to the OP is that there appears to be a demand for establishing ideas of GOD through written word, and this demand doesn't always come through theist mindsets, as you have demonstrated by your writing the words;

You would need to then point to your source of information concerning this other God.

and;

But it's up to them to show how they have obtained this additional information about this God.

While that specifically is not the focus of the OP, when it comes to written information regard this or that idea of GOD, the OP is only speaking to the idea that any writ can be idolized, but the focus is on Christian writ in that regard, although this naturally extends to Hebrew writ as well, because 'the OT'.

The bible tells stories related to that idea of GOD, but the focus of the OP is not so much about those stories, but the book itself, and whether that book is an idol. The OP is not asking Christians to 'show how they got their information', additional or otherwise, and nor is it about anyone with a different idea of GOD, having to prove to anyone that their source of information re different ideas of GOD 'comes from somewhere' - indeed the OP isn't about getting into any argument with those who have no beliefs in the existence of any GODs. You are barking up the wrong tree DI.

[bluethread]

The Scriptures are an anthology that indicates that they are not all inclusive, nor is everything in a specific canon of Scripture. That said, if one is a believer in the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov, as Yeshua was. That one would be accepting of HaTorah as the primary revelation of that deity.

It is true that many people view a particular translation, or set of translations, as the entire revelation of that deity. However, the fact that the canon of Scriptures is an anthology indicates that there is no one exclusive set of Scriptures. I personally accept the KJV canon, but am willing to examine other sources.

Your other question seems to relate to why there is no more direct revelation. I think a couple of reasons is that, as long as we already have the foundational revelation(HaTorah) and exemplary revelation in the writings of the Psalms, Prophets and Apostles, additional revelation would be more specific and personal. Also, it is recorded in HaTorah that the people, upon experiencing direct revelation at Sinai, requested that Adonai not address them directly, but provide revelation through Prophets instead.

[2timothy316]

Is the Bible equal to GOD?
No.

The Bible is equal to God's Word. It can be viewed just like Jehovah God wrote a personal letter to each person on the Earth.

A father writes a letter to instruct his sons what to do. The piece of paper, the letter, is not equal to person that wrote the letter. But what the letter says better be followed as if that father was standing right in front of them speaking.

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

The Scriptures are an anthology that indicates that they are not all inclusive, nor is everything in a specific canon of Scripture. That said, if one is a believer in the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov, as Yeshua was. That one would be accepting of HaTorah as the primary revelation of that deity.

There is no reason for me to think that the story of Yeshua as recorded should lead me to believe that Jesus thought the way you say, about HaTorah. It is apparent that he got his inspiration from a direct relationship with his GOD, not through the medium of an idol/something idolized.

It is true that many people view a particular translation, or set of translations, as the entire revelation of that deity.

Would such be idolatry?

However, the fact that the canon of Scriptures is an anthology indicates that there is no one exclusive set of Scriptures. I personally accept the KJV canon, but am willing to examine other sources.

Why the necessity for 'sources' which act as a medium between GOD and the individual?

Your other question seems to relate to why there is no more direct revelation. I think a couple of reasons is that, as long as we already have the foundational revelation(HaTorah) and exemplary revelation in the writings of the Psalms, Prophets and Apostles, additional revelation would be more specific and personal.

Are you saying then the the Hebrew GOD is not interested in communing with the individual and forming relationship in that manner?

Also, it is recorded in HaTorah that the people, upon experiencing direct revelation at Sinai, requested that Adonai not address them directly, but provide revelation through Prophets instead.

Reading the script it appears a bit of a stretch to say that the GOD spoke to a whole nation as a voice 'from the fire' and even more of a stretch to be asked to believe that after such a remarkable thing, the people then 'requested' that the GOD no longer commune with them in that fashion but to do so through mediums. That is obviously counterproductive and can be seen to be a device used in order to 'explain' why the GOD uses prophets to 'get his word across' to the people who the GOD wants to communicate with. A method historically shown to be open to abuse and creating separatism and argument.

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

Is the Bible equal to GOD?
No.

Then why is it used as the medium between GOD and the individual?

The Bible is equal to God's Word.

Are you saying that the Gods word is not equal to the God?

It can be viewed just like Jehovah God wrote a personal letter to each person on the Earth.

No doubt, but is this the way it should - in truth - be viewed? Why would the God wish to communicate with the individual in that fashion when he could (as is apparent in the stories) do so directly?

I can understand that if a human institution wished to educate the masses as to its agenda, then it would have no choice but to do so through the medium of the written word, but what need is there for a God to have to follow the same course? Even the risk of it been mistaken for political propaganda should be enough for a God to use other methods in which to communicate to - not only the masses, but also individuals.

A father writes a letter to instruct his sons what to do.

Or nowadays, might send a text. So what? We are not talking about individual human beings communicating with each other.

The piece of paper, the letter, is not equal to person that wrote the letter.

Even so, the bible appears to be treated as equal to the God as a claimed authority, and people appear to be having a relationship with the bible, not with the God, because the relationship is with the letter, not the father who is claimed to have written the letter. This is why the OP questions.

But what the letter says better be followed as if that father was standing right in front of them speaking.

This is the crux of the matter, for sure. The idea that the medium between the God and the individual is 'The Bible' and 'it had better be treated as if it were the God standing in front of you, speaking' and 'you had better do as this effigy of God in the form of a book' tells you.

This is in itself the epitome of an idol.

[bluethread]

There is no reason for me to think that the story of Yeshua as recorded should lead me to believe that Jesus thought the way you say, about HaTorah. It is apparent that he got his inspiration from a direct relationship with his GOD, not through the medium of an idol/something idolized.

There is plenty of reason to believe that Yeshua supported HaTorah. He repeatedly quoted from it and even said, (Mt. 5:18) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

It is true that many people view a particular translation, or set of translations, as the entire revelation of that deity.

Would such be idolatry?

No, that would merely be misguided. Viewing it as the embodiment of Adonai, would be idolatry.

However, the fact that the canon of Scriptures is an anthology indicates that there is no one exclusive set of Scriptures. I personally accept the KJV canon, but am willing to examine other sources.

Why the necessity for 'sources' which act as a medium between GOD and the individual?

Direct revelation is also a source.

Your other question seems to relate to why there is no more direct revelation. I think a couple of reasons is that, as long as we already have the foundational revelation(HaTorah) and exemplary revelation in the writings of the Psalms, Prophets and Apostles, additional revelation would be more specific and personal.

Are you saying then the the Hebrew GOD is not interested in communing with the individual and forming relationship in that manner?

No, I am saying that any such communication would probably be personal and specific in nature and not run counter to previous revelation.

Also, it is recorded in HaTorah that the people, upon experiencing direct revelation at Sinai, requested that Adonai not address them directly, but provide revelation through Prophets instead.

Reading the script it appears a bit of a stretch to say that the GOD spoke to a whole nation as a voice 'from the fire' and even more of a stretch to be asked to believe that after such a remarkable thing, the people then 'requested' that the GOD no longer commune with them in that fashion but to do so through mediums. That is obviously counterproductive and can be seen to be a device used in order to 'explain' why the GOD uses prophets to 'get his word across' to the people who the GOD wants to communicate with. A method historically shown to be open to abuse and creating separatism and argument.

Well, if you do not accept previous revelation, why are you concerned about violating that revelation? Also, this is not the C&A thread, where one can take that position. This is the TD&D thread, where the Scriptures are presumed to be to be valid.

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

There is plenty of reason to believe that Yeshua supported HaTorah. He repeatedly quoted from it and even said, (Mt. 5:18) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

For one, supporting written inspiration is not the same as having a personal relationship with GOD - what the verse you use is supports that which supports having a personal relationship with GOD - not with the written law.

In that, we know 'The Law' Yeshua spoke to were two particular items which themselves could be seen as one and the same.

Matthew 22;
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

For the other, such testament could be either placed in the mouth of Jesus (made up by the early rulers of Christendom) for the purpose of linking HaTorah in that manner to redirect to the laws of the Hebrews in relation to the way the Hebrews had a relationship with GOD (through the law of the prophets and covenant) or the misinterpretation in conflating the old with the new, in that Yeshua was referring to the way he summed up the law, not the whole Hebrew law re HaTorah. A new covenant with its focus on specific law to which not one jot or one tittle shall in no manner pass from said summarized law, until that law was manifested throughout the human population of the earth.

No, that would merely be misguided. Viewing it as the embodiment of Adonai, would be idolatry.

What does "the embodiment of Adonai" mean? Is a golden calf the 'embodiment of Adonai'? Are the stone tablets the 'embodiment of Adonai'? Ark of the Covenant the 'embodiment of Adonai'?

Why the necessity for 'sources' which act as a medium between GOD and the individual?

Direct revelation is also a source.

That is not under debate. But what are we to think then, that everything, equally can be a source? That the GOD is not limited by means and manner the GOD is able to commune with the individual?

No, I am saying that any such communication would probably be personal and specific in nature and not run counter to previous revelation.

And where is this 'previous revelation' sourced and why would it be considered communicated from GOD?

Reading the script it appears a bit of a stretch to say that the GOD spoke to a whole nation as a voice 'from the fire' and even more of a stretch to be asked to believe that after such a remarkable thing, the people then 'requested' that the GOD no longer commune with them in that fashion but to do so through mediums. That is obviously counterproductive and can be seen to be a device used in order to 'explain' why the GOD uses prophets to 'get his word across' to the people who the GOD wants to communicate with. A method historically shown to be open to abuse and creating separatism and argument.

Well, if you do not accept previous revelation, why are you concerned about violating that revelation?

Some revelation is actually revealing while others are decidedly not. One has to sort the wheat from the chaff, and that is where concern is best focused on.
If the holy books are indeed being used as a form of idolatry, that is a question best investigated, rather than conveniently ignored In that, all I have done is question your own take on the matter bluethread, and have shown that the stories you used are questionable as they can be shown to just as likely and even more than likely, represent something other than what they claim to represent. Namely, they might represent men and not GOD at all.

Also, this is not the C&A thread, where one can take that position. This is the TD&D thread, where the Scriptures are presumed to be to be valid.

The Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum is for exploring the details of Christianity, and there is nothing to say that such are not to be explored for fault or deception in regard to the bible and its many interpretations/the way in which it is used.

It must be noted bluethread, that I am not making any accusation that the bible is true or false, but rather I am questioning whether it is being used by Christians as an idol - in lieu of a real and personal relationship with an actual GOD.
Indeed, there have been plenty of threads calling out the idolization of Jesus, and no one has complained that stories in the bible about that are presumed to be valid.

My stance is that wrong interpretation is what has elevated the bible to being the medium between GOD and the individual. Any object used for such, has to be an idol.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

The Bible is equal to God's Word. It can be viewed just like Jehovah God wrote a personal letter to each person on the Earth.

A father writes a letter to instruct his sons what to do. The piece of paper, the letter, is not equal to person that wrote the letter. But what the letter says better be followed as if that father was standing right in front of them speaking.

How is it personal to each person on Earth? There is no opening saying "Dear rikuoamero", "To 2timothy316".

The closest I can see this analogy of yours actually going is company or corporate or political letter-heads, that say "Dear Employee" "Dear Valued Voter", "To Whom it May Concern" "Dear Resident".
Yes, you and I fall under these groups...but that's as far as they go. We're residents, we're voters, we're employees...but do publications given to everyone EVER go so far as to name us individually?
No, and that's because they lack the ability to do so. Even if we're talking about digital publications, where they grab our names from a database and copy + paste them in, the resulting communication still ends up lacking that personal touch, that feeling of coming from someone who knows me personally.
The Bible is like that. Where is the personal message to me, rikuoamero?