Is the Bible really God's Word? Some say "not all of it"

[BobRyan]

DHK has asked several times that we not look at certain portions of scripture when determining what the Bible teaching on a given subject is -

He tried this first with the subject of the Atonement (I think) asking that we NOT use any of the OT text of scripture when defining the view that God teaches in His Word on that subject.

Later DHK would try the same thing with the doctrine on "Everlasting fire" as mentioned in Matthew and in Jude 7. DHK insisted that we not look at Jude 7 as part of the Teaching of Christ on this subject as he attempted to divide the inspiration of Christ and the Holy Spirit as given to Matthew (decades after the cross) as compared that that SAME inspiration given to Jude resulting in the apostolic teaching we find in the book of Jude.

Here is DHK's last shifting-sand position

DHK said -
Matthew was a historian. He recorded the events of the life of Christ. Like any historian his information may have come from different sources, the main source being from Christ himself. The Apostles were not robots mechanically taking dictation from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise there would not be any difference in their styles of writing. Paul was highly ediucated, and Peter attests that in his epistles were things "hard to understand." John, a fisherman, wrote in a very simple style. The Gospel of John is no doubt the easiest book in the Bible to read. Why is that? They had different backgrounds, different educational backgrounds; different personalities; and God allowed the expression of these things to shine through in their writings even though every word was inspired--superintended by the Holy Spirit. They were not robots taking dictation.
Mark got much of his information from Peter with whom he was closely associated. Mark was not an Apostle.
Luke was not an Apostle either. But he was a companion of Paul on his missionary journeys. Paul did received direct revelation from God.

Thus, like any historian, Matthew used different sources for his book. Each part of his book--every word of it--is inspired of the Holy Spirit. But not every word is Christ's word. In fact not every word is Matthew's word. Matthew quotes from Satan.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=978313&postcount=295

The following obvious points were already pointed out.

#1. Matthew did NOT interview Satan to get the words of Satan recorded in Matt 4 -- NOR did Satan come to Matthew and request that HIS SIDE be given in the Matt 4 acccount.

#2. ALL scripture is inspired BY GOD -- which means it is the teaching of GOD that we find in Matt 4 - as HE teaches us about the work of Satan at the time of Christ's temptation. GOD is the author of scripture!

#3. In John 16 CHRIST claims that ALL that the Holy Spirit inspires is REALLY the Words and teaching of CHRIST - which means that NT apostolic teaching IS IN FACT the WORD of GOD - the TEACHING of Christ to His NT church!

This would all normally be "simple and obvious" but DHK has climbed out n a limb on this one -- so I wanted a thread dedicated to a review of this new form of eisegesis that DHK is suggesting. It will be interesting to see how many Baptists on this forum actually agree with DHK on this one!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When confronted with the Bible truth that ALL scripture is INSPIRED by God -- and that this happens in the form of the Holy Spirit taking the WORDS and TEACHING of God the Son - CHRIST and giving this to Bible authors (sometimes in the form of truths regarding historic accounts) DHK authors an interesting false accusation as follows

DHK said

Jude spoke the words of Jude, not Christ. Please don't lie about it, as you have been all along because you are too proud to admit a mistake.

…

"Thou shalt not surely die." Whose words are they? Care to answer?

Why do you insist on twisting scripture to such an extent that you want to put one author's words in the mouth of another's words. That is a perversion of scripture. It is part of what defines a cult. You cut one verse out of one part of the Bible and paste in another part of the Bible, and then say that someone else wrote it? What kind of perversion is that?? …

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=978016&postcount=270

Bob said

Indeed I did not say "CHRIST WROTE" and then quote Matthew OR the book of Jude sir!

How obvious!

God said -
John 16
12 ""I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 ""But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 ""He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "" All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.[/b]

Paul SAID -

1Thess 2
13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

So "YES" the WORD given to us in the APOSTOLIC TEACHING we find in Jude is "The WORD of God" and as we see from John 16 it IS "The Word of Christ" it is the TEACHING of Christ it is what Christ said to Jude through the Holy Spirit.

A more glaringly obvious point could hardly be imagined sir!
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=978158&postcount=282

So again the point "remains" -- good Bible scholarship demands that we admit that SCRIPTURE IS in fact the WORD of God!! Even when God is teaching us about the evil that was planned by Satan - it is STILL God's Word TEACHING us about it!!

Glaringly obvious I know - but DHK seems to enjoy calling the obvious into question often in the form of revisionist history as his quote above demonstrates.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[canadyjd]

I believe it is against posting rules to start a thread for the sole purpose of personally attacking someone.

You must be trying to get banned from the board to start a thread just to personally attack a moderator.

peace to youraying:

 

[BobRyan]

The teaching of any given doctrine in scripture must include the full weight of scripture on that doctrine. In the case of the teaching on everlasting fire as used in the NT we were looking at Matthew's account and I also included the teaching of Christ found in God's word - in the form of the apostolic letter of Jude as IT TOO adds to our understanding of God's views on the subject of "everlasting fire".

It should be noted that DHKs (Christ is not speaking the words of Satan in Matt 4) extreme style of rabbit-trailing has everything to do with hist attempt to cover for one of his "not all of the Bible can be attributed to Christ" argument he made about the doctrine and teaching of everlasting fire in Matthew and how we should not consider what the Word of God says on that SAME subject in Jude if our interest is in the teaching of Christ.

DHK said

My interpretation is not wrong. Did it ever occur to you that the omniscient Almighty Lord of Creation was not confined to the Book of Jude to interpret and understand the very words that he was speaking??
I ask again: Was Christ lying when he used the words:

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Are you prepared to say that he didn't mean what he said, or that somehow he had to rely on his foreknowledge of the Book of Jude that would not be written until another 40 years. Even if that was the case, your interpretation of that book is clearly wrong. But that isn't the case. Everlasting fire does not mean temporal, and there was no present in that audience that would have understood it that way.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=973267&postcount=121

 

[BobRyan]

I believe it is against posting rules to start a thread for the sole purpose of personally attacking someone.

You must be trying to get banned from the board to start a thread just to personally attack a moderator.

peace to youraying:

It is clear that I do not agree with DHK's methods or argument here - but for all I know there are many Baptists who would support it as valid and as the right way to approach Bible study and doctrine.

If so - I want to hear their strong support of his approach to doctrine, context and "what defines the Word of God".

Clearly I do not agree with his practice here. But others may.

I also would have no wish to post anything that DHK himself would consider to be a mistake on his part. But in order to keep this point clear - I have edited the OP as per your suggestion.

I quote DHK as accusing me of lying, of using cult tactics, of using perversion in Bible study but in this thread I have not used those terms against him -- is this what you mean about "personal attacks"???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tinytim]

I don't see where DHK disagrees that the Bible is God's word... He is simply pointing out that God used the writers experiences, and personalities to accomplish His will.

For instance, how do you explain the fact that only Matthew includes in his Gospel the account of the chief priests bribing the soldiers to lie and say that the disciples stole the body in Chapter 28?

I believe it stems from the fact that Matthew was a tax collector, and as such worked along side the Roman soldiers.. no doubt he made friends among them... inside sources....

But saying that Matthew got inside info from the soldiers in no way disagrees that God orchestrated the events to get Matthew this little bit of info, and then led Matthew to write it.

 

[BobRyan]

If we conclude that it is true that all scripture is God-breathed -- inspired by God then it is God's will - design - plan etc to TEACH what we read as coming from the pen of the Apostolic letters and Gospel writers. And this holds true even in a case like the Gospel of Luke where Luke writes that he is researching the subject and compiling the account based on investigation.

And the point of John 16 quoted above is that CHRIST Himself claims to be TEACHING us through the inspired Word. "I have many more things to say to you but you can not bear them now".

Therefore when we look for a given doctrine (let's say the doctrine on everlasting fire in this case) it is perfectly correct to READ what Christ is teaching the NT church in Matt 10:28 and in Matt 25:41 AND in Jude 7 on this important doctrine.

One can NOT divide out the Word of God saying "well yes but Jude 7 is just JUDE teaching NOT Christ".

At least that is my view. This could be totally contrary to what Baptists have been taught about the Word of God. Hence my interest in exploring this point with the board.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

If we conclude that it is true that all scripture is God-breathed -- inspired by God then it is God's will - design - plan etc to TEACH what we read as coming from the pen of the Apostolic letters and Gospel writers. And this holds true even in a case like the Gospel of Luke where Luke writes that he is researching the subject and compiling the account based on investigation.

If what you say is true here, you shouldn't have any problem. But you have contradicted yourself. This is not what you say or have said in other threads.

And the point of John 16 quoted above is that CHRIST Himself claims to be TEACHING us through the inspired Word. "I have many more things to say to you but you can not bear them now".

That was a true statement. He taught them throght "the Comforter" which he sent later on. This has nothing to do with inspiration.

Therefore when we look for a given doctrine (let's say the doctrine on everlasting fire in this case) it is perfectly correct to READ what Christ is teaching the NT church in Matt 10:28 and in Matt 25:41 AND in Jude 7 on this important doctrine.

No it isn't. Here is where you pervert the Scriptures again. You start attributing the words of one author to the words of another author. Hogwash! Do you also attribute the words of Satan to Christ, something Christ called "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?" Shame on you!
Why can't you understand that when an author says something then that is what that author means. It is not what another author is saying, but rather what the original author is saying. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

One can NOT divide out the Word of God saying "well yes but Jude 7 is just JUDE teaching NOT Christ".[/quote
If Jude did not write Jude, then who did? Barnacle Bill the sailor, perhaps? Your position is completely untenable! Jude claims to be the author; he is the only one that claims to be the author. To say otherwise is to deny the Scriptures and say that they are not true, and not infallible. Is this what you believe?

Here is what the Book of Jude states:
Jude 1:1-2 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

What part of the name of "Jude" do you not understand? Or is it just a matter of not believing the Scriptures? I think the latter is the case. It doesn't say: "Christ,...to thme that are sanctified...mercy unto you..."
Christ isn't the one writing. Jude is. The Bible says it is so. Believe it.

At least that is my view. This could be totally contrary to what Baptists have been taught about the Word of God. Hence my interest in exploring this point with the board.
Bob

All Scripture is inspired of God. That doesn't mean that Christ wrote all Scripture. To believe that would be absure. Christ did not author the words of Satan. Do you really believe that? They are inspired--accuratley recorded and say exactly what God intended them to say; but they are not Christ's words. I hope you can understand that.

You cannot mix the words of Christ with the words of Satan;
And you cannot mix the words of Christ with the words of Jude.
It is that simple.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
If we conclude that it is true that all scripture is God-breathed -- inspired by God then it is God's will - design - plan etc to TEACH what we read as coming from the pen of the Apostolic letters and Gospel writers. And this holds true even in a case like the Gospel of Luke where Luke writes that he is researching the subject and compiling the account based on investigation.

DHK
If what you say is true here, you shouldn't have any problem. But you have contradicted yourself. This is not what you say or have said in other threads.

Yet another false accusation sir ? Is there no end?

Why not provide the quote since you claim that you have seen this on the other thread. SHOW where your accusation holds water.

In christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
And the point of John 16 quoted above is that CHRIST Himself claims to be TEACHING us through the inspired Word. "I have many more things to say to you but you can not bear them now".

DHK said
That was a true statement. He taught them throght "the Comforter" which he sent later on. This has nothing to do with inspiration.

If there are baptists here that agree that Christ's statement in John 16 regarding the FUTURE work of the Holy Spirit it revealing truth to the disciples "had nothing to do with inspiration" or the apostolic letters written by NT authors -- please let your voices be heard!

Or should I assume that all baptists just automatically believe such wild ideas?

 

[BobRyan]

Therefore when we look for a given doctrine (let's say the doctrine on everlasting fire in this case) it is perfectly correct to READ what Christ is teaching the NT church in Matt 10:28 and in Matt 25:41 AND in Jude 7 on this important doctrine.

DHK said
No it isn't. Here is where you pervert the Scriptures again. You start attributing the words of one author to the words of another author. Hogwash!

In DHK's short heretical statement we have the contrast between our two positions.

(In this case DHK tries to support his failed doctrine on slicing up scripture by first twisting my statement above talking about "two different authors" but as we noted already Christ did NOT write the book of Matthew OR the book of Jude - yet His TEACHING is in both. Simple obvious concept - key for DHK to reject).

God said -
John 16
12 ""I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 ""But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 ""He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "" All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.[/b]

Paul SAID -

1Thess 2
13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.


And by contrast -- Any takers for DHK's argument??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

The Bible is sufficient for morals and worship practice. Anyone who thinks it is a science or history text is fooling themselves.

That being said, the NT is the best source of Jewish 1st century religious practice - so admits Jacob Neusner.

 

[bound]

Therefore when we look for a given doctrine (let's say the doctrine on everlasting fire in this case) it is perfectly correct to READ what Christ is teaching the NT church in Matt 10:28 and in Matt 25:41 AND in Jude 7 on this important doctrine.

Grace and Peace BobRyan,

I believe that you conflate the role that the Apostles 'humanity' plays with expressing the 'inspired' message of the Holy Ghost.

In our continued 'grasp' for objective authority in the Scriptures we can risk divinizing these very 'human' expressions as the 'inspired' message of the Holy Ghost.

I'm, personally, not sure this was intended and most scholars steer away from such a naive interpretation of the Scriptures.

In DHK's short heretical statement we have the contrast between our two positions.

(In this case DHK tries to support his failed doctrine on slicing up scripture by first twisting my statement above talking about "two different authors" but as we noted already Christ did NOT write the book of Matthew OR the book of Jude - yet His TEACHING is in both. Simple obvious concept - key for DHK to reject).

God said -
John 16
12 ""I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 ""But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 ""He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "" All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.[/b]

Paul SAID -

1Thess 2
13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.


And by contrast -- Any takers for DHK's argument??

I believe it's not unfair to point out that individual Apostles and Scpritural writers viewed the 'inspired' message through conceptions which are, in a very real sense, their own unique constructs which are, not only historical but also personal.

Constrasting the works of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John are very telling of this point. Each uses terms and terminology which aren't always identical and frankly shouldn't be assumed to be. This is much clearer when one examines the Greek Texts I guess but any amature scholar should also note this in their studies.

Regardless Peace.

 

[BobRyan]

The text of John 16 and 1Thess 2 as quoted above does not negate the fact that Matthew WRITES Matthew or that Jude WRITES Jude.

What it argues is that IN ALL OF THAT - what you have is NOT the "teaching of man" but the "teaching of Christ" via inspiration.


Therefore when we look for a given doctrine (let's say the doctrine on everlasting fire in this case) it is perfectly correct to READ what Christ is teaching the NT church in Matt 10:28 and in Matt 25:41 AND in Jude 7 on this important doctrine.

The question remains - are their baptists here who reject that (other than DHK and HBSMN of course).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

1 Corinthians 7:12 (KJV) But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Bob,

Do you think Paul was lying when he penned to the Corinthian church the verse above? Paul clearly said it was his word and not the Lords... yet we know as written to Timothy by this same Paul said that

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I agree with DHK,

Just because the scripture is inspired by God, it is not necessarily all that God said. Paul proved that in the letter to the Corinthians, The Gospels prove it with the words of satan... other books also record the words from other than God.

 

[BobRyan]

God said -
John 16
12 ""I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 ""But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 ""He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 "" All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.[/b]

Paul SAID -

1Thess 2
13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.


And by contrast -- Any takers for DHK's opposing argument?? (other than HBSMN)

The text of John 16 and 1Thess 2 as quoted above does not negate the fact that Matthew WRITES Matthew or that Jude WRITES Jude.

What it argues is that IN ALL OF THAT - what you have is NOT the "teaching of man" but the "teaching of Christ" via inspiration.

Therefore when we look for a given doctrine (let's say the doctrine on everlasting fire in this case) it is perfectly correct to READ what Christ is teaching the NT church in Matt 10:28 and in Matt 25:41 AND in Jude 7 on this important doctrine.
The question remains - are there baptists here who reject that (other than DHK and HBSMN of course).

The rabbit trail that would argue that the books of Samuel quote David not God -- misses the entire point. It is STILL the WORD OF GOD "TEACHING" us even when Saul or Johnathan are being quoted because GOD is the one teaching us the lesson - using the story of David. It is GOD that reveals the details to MAtthew regarding the temptation of Christ in Matt 4 so it STILL GOD TEACHING - it is STILL the WORD of God as SCRIPTURE teaching us through the events of sacred history! And this is even more the case when it comes the Apostolic Teaching of NT authors - CHRIST is doing exactly what HE said HE would do through the Holy Spirit - teaching us of the "MANY MORE THINGS" that HE has to say.

Sadly - some Baptists claim they have apparently rejected this Bible truth.

Iin Christ,

Bob

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Christ cannot deny Himself, yet if one were to follow BobRyan's logic that Christ spoke the Word and people wrote it down, then that means Christ would have denied Himself when we read:

Matthew 9:34 (KJV) But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.

It is foolish to think that ever word spoken by man or devil came was what God or Jesus Christ told him to speak.

 

[DHK]

In DHK's short heretical statement we have the contrast between our two positions.

(In this case DHK tries to support his failed doctrine on slicing up scripture by first twisting my statement above talking about "two different authors" but as we noted already Christ did NOT write the book of Matthew OR the book of Jude - yet His TEACHING is in both. Simple obvious concept - key for DHK to reject).
Bob

When lacking for evidence to back up one's position he resorts to name-calling, and calling a Biblical position as "heretical" and "failed doctrine." The doctrine of inspiration is not heresy, neither is it failed doctrine. Your point of view is completely unorthodox. I have advised you to study the doctrine of Bibliology, and in particular "inspiration," but you have failed to do so, and instead have spouted off some wild and fanciful ideas.
I, as well as others, have quoted you Scripture which you have not been able to refute or answer. Just to make it clear, I was not unwilling to reconcile Mat.25:41 with Jude 7. I was simply correcting a mistake of yours to attribute the words of Jude to the words of Christ when you said: "Christ said in Jude 7," thus trying to strenthen your argument. It is a false statement. Christ did not say anything in the book of Jude. Jude wrote the book of Jude. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is the plain teaching of Scripture. If it isn't then according to you, Christ speaks against himself when the words of Satan are spoken. Does Christ speak the words of Satan: "fall down and worship me." Are these the words of Christ or Satan? Please answer the question.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This is how the Bible came to be inspired. Holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Who did the speaking? The holy men of old--the prophets, and by extension the apostles. It was their recorded words, and the words that they quoted from others, that were inspired. Christ did not say all of them. The authors were the forty or so authors that make up our 66 books of the Bible, though the Holy Spirit inspired each one of them. Christ's words make up a very small percentage of the entire Bible. To attribute his words to another author is deceit.

 

[bound]

Sadly - some Baptists claim they have apparently rejected this Bible truth.

Grace and Peace BobRyan,

This is where we differ, in my humble opinion. I don't believe it is a matter of 'some' Baptists rejecting Biblical 'truth' as much as 'some' Baptists rejecting what you are inferring through your SDA hermeneutic.

What you are doing in conflating what you derive through reasoning (i.e. infer) with biblical 'truth' and it just ain't so...

Regardless Peace and God Bless.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

When I see 'the Holy Spirit inspired these men', I think God is saying, 'Jude said this, '...', or Paul said this '...', but I want you to write it down that all may learn and grow.

It is not that God spoke the words of these authors, but that He wants us to glean and grow.