Is the Bible the Word of God?

[Joseph_Botwinick]

OK, I think I got it, thanks! :thumbs:

But I do still encourage other Bible passages to bring up, and where they are found, just in case he wants more than one!:smilewinkgrin:

thanks for the help!
Jer2913

Jer,

I hate to be negative with you, but IMO, no matter how many verses you quote to him, he is probably not going to change his mind. It may be a long time before he comes to his senses. Believe me, I know. I have been there. Yes, try and show him the truth. Pray for him, as will I. And be his friend. And keep studying the Word of God. The more you do this, the more you will be able to answer some tough questions. Be patient with your friend. I will pray for you and your friend.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Jer2913]

Jer,

I hate to be negative with you, but IMO, no matter how many verses you quote to him, he is probably not going to change his mind. It may be a long time before he comes to his senses. Believe me, I know. I have been there. Yes, try and show him the truth. Pray for him, as will I. And be his friend. And keep studying the Word of God. The more you do this, the more you will be able to answer some tough questions. Be patient with your friend. I will pray for you and your friend.

Ok, well still thanks for all the help!:smilewinkgrin:

Jer2913

 

[LeBuick]

He says he doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God. He also said that the only time the Bible is refered more as the Word of God is when it comes to the Old Testament (so it could be more like the New Testament isn't the Word of God according to him). Jer2913

Jer, it is hard for me to answer this post because I don't know where you are in your faith. What do you believe about scripture?

Some history of this thinking comes from detailing the history of the Bible. Obviously when you see the word scripture in the Gospels, they are referring to the OT. It is guesstimated Mark was the first Gospel writer which was written 30 or more years after the death of Jesus (some guess). This is where the inspiration comes into play. How much detail do you remember from 30 years ago?

EDIT. John confirms this as he closes his Gospel,
[24] This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
[25] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


Also keep in mind Luke did not walk with Jesus, so he is writting what others have told him and under the guidance of the holy spirit.

The Epistles were letters. Romans is Paul writting to the Church in Rome. It is not known how much these letters were shared with other Churches. In other words, did a copy of the letter Paul wrote to Rome ever make it to Ephesus? Also keep in mind that all of Pauls letters were not written at the same time.

We know Peters letters did not make it to all the places Paul established Churches until later. How much later is disputed mostly because we have yet to find the original documents, just copies.

Cannization of what we now call the new testament was done in the 3rd century. Keep in mind there were more Gospels and letters written from this time than what we now have in the Bible. For example, Thomas wrote a Gospel. He stressed salvation by works so it did not make the Bible.

There were many epistles or letters found also. The authitencity and Authority were viewed by a councel which, under the inspiration of the holy spirit, assembled what we now call the Bible.

Taking all of this in mind, It is hard to say if Paul means a letter he wrote when he says scripture so this is a very disputed point. Keep in mind Paul was a Jew and was fluent with OT.

We the modern day Church believe, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" When we say all we do indeed include Pauls writings. This we profess as true and so place all our hope.

 

[garpier]

Here are a couple of New Testament verses that refer to the New Testament as scripture.
I Tim 5:18 "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

The first part is from Deuteronomy 25:4 and the second is found in Luke 10:7. Clearly Paul regarded both as scripture.

II Peter 3:16 " As also in all is epistles, speaking in them on these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

This is Peter's comment on the writings of Paul. He equated Paul's writings with other scriptures.

The New Testament writings were recognized as Scripture before the close of the first century. While a third century council may have given a list it was the list that had already been recoginized by New Testament churches all along. The other writings LeBucik referred to were given the name of a prominent apostle (like Thomas) but that was only in the attempt too give them credence. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Thomas wrote that book. Many writings were authored by gnostics who were attempting to subvert the Word of God but these writings were rejected by the early New Testament churches.
Hope this helps

 

[Pipedude]

Cannization of what we now call the new testament was done in the 3rd century. Keep in mind there were more Gospels and letters written from this time than what we now have in the Bible. For example, Thomas wrote a Gospel. He stressed salvation by works so it did not make the Bible.

There were many epistles or letters found also. The authitencity and Authority were viewed by a councel which, under the inspiration of the holy spirit, assembled what we now call the Bible.

Canonization was a human act; it was not done under "the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Church councils have erred many times about many things. In the providence of God, true Christians already knew which books were God's word, and they knew it from apostolic times. Church councils just made official pronouncements so that dissent could be quelled.

Thomas did not write a gospel. Some heretic(s) wrote some nonsense and put Thomas's name on it. It is a forgery. No apostle would have written junk like that.

 

[Baptist Believer]

He was giving an example of some history in the Bible. It had to do with the Roman Empire (and possibly referring to a certain time period in the Roman empire) where it talks about some event I think that's in the Bible (sorry what he said about it was kinda confusing for me), and he was saying that so far there haven't been any documents to prove that it really happened in history, and so that part of the Bible could be false.

You haven’t given me much to go on, but perhaps he was thinking of the census of Caesar Augustus mentioned in Luke 2?

As far as I know, there is no secular corroboration of the event, which leads some people to assume that it didn’t happen. Of course, if you approach any ancient document with distrust and suspicion, there will be all sorts of things you can’t prove by corroboration.

The real issue is that your friend is obsessed with having certainty, and there’s very little certainty to be found if you’re honest about your own personal limited perspective and knowledge, based on simple reason and experience. It’s a popular perspective today in our culture of scientism, but cannot help a person live their life or approach any of the great issues of our day, including faith in God.

He didn't have this opinion in the beginning, in the beginning he did believe that the Bible is the Word of God. What happened was, he went to a college called Baylor, and apparently some professors teach that the Bible isn't the Word of God.

Sounds like his local church did not prepare him to think critically about issues of faith and reason. The professors were likely pointing out the difference between Christ, the Word of God, and the Bible, the word of God.

He said that when he first heard them teach that he was very upset with it, but apparently he read something that C.S. Lewis said about the early Christians and how they didn't have the Bible, and I think because of that they didn't base they're faith from the Bible or somethin' like that.

And that’s true. The early Christians did not have the New Testament (it wasn’t written or was being written at the time) and most did not have ready access to the Old Testament. Their faith was based on a personal relationship with Christ and the teachings of Christ preserved in the church. Our faith should be the same way. The New Testament is a product of the early church (God-inspired) that preserves the teaching of Christ and the wisdom and knowledge of the early church. The Old Testament is also the product of the community of Jewish faith. It is also God-inspired.

Basically Baylor was teachin' it, and he didn't go for it til he read somethin' by C.S. Lewis that put it into a different light for him, and helped him to see their point of veiw, and now believes their point of view on the Bible.

From what you have stated, I don’t disagree with what he was allegedly taught at Baylor. But I do disagree with the position he has taken in regard to the Bible.

I’ve known a small number of people who have had their faith derailed when they attended the mandatory Bible classes at Texas Baptist schools. (I imagine it happens at all the others, but I don’t have any personal experience with those people.) In my understanding of the common elements of those experiences, the students enter college with a very naïve and often unbiblical view of the Christian faith that sees the Bible as the object of worship and faith as a series of facts, emotional experiences at camp, and theological/social positions. When they are confronted with an adult reading of scripture and theology, their childhood faith comes apart.

I know what that experience is like, except it wasn’t at a Texas Baptist school. During my first semester in college, my older brother told me he had become an atheist. It really upset me because my brother was very influential in my becoming a Christian. We talked for a few minutes about the issues, and I could feel my own childhood faith collapsing around me. But instead of simply accepting the fact that our church upbringing did not prepare us to be Christians (just religious), I began a personal and private two-year study to determine what to believe about religious things. I read the Bible through on at least two occasions, and the New Testament all the way through countless times. I also studied the teachings of occultism (Aleister Crowley, etc.), Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Islam (admittedly not much about it, since it seems to be mostly cultural), and numerous works by atheists.

• The occultists seemed to be destroyed by their own beliefs.
• The Mormons believed things that did not make any sense and contradicted each other.
• Jehovah’s Witness teaching did not line up with the Bible.
• Islam didn’t connect at all.
• The atheists seemed to be intensely angry at a God that they claimed not to believe in!

In the end, the Holy Spirit worked in my life and I rediscovered Christ in my life (who had been there since I was 14) and learned the ways of the Kingdom of God through the pages of the scripture. In the end, I see that that time where my childhood faith was destroyed and a new adult faith began was a major transforming work of the Holy Spirit in my life.

Your friend may be going through a similar situation. I recommend that you stop trying to “prove” things to him, but instead, be a good listener, ask good questions that make him consider the true implications of what he believes, and pray for him. You also need to live in the power of Christ before him, and ask the Holy Spirit to give you the sensitivity to say the appropriate words at the appropriate time. Your friend will not be impressed by religion, he’s seen plenty of that, but he will likely be impressed by a living example of Christ working in someone’s ordinary day-to-day life.

 

[LeBuick]

Here are a couple of New Testament verses that refer to the New Testament as scripture.
I Tim 5:18 "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

and the second is found in Luke 10:7. Clearly Paul regarded both as scripture.

This could be so and I'm not dusputing what you say. To know for sure you would have to know which was written first. Luke's gospel was believed to be the last that was written. It contains writings from each of the synoptics and is appearent the writer took more time with detail etc... What year that was? We can only say for sure it was more than 30 years after the death of Jesus. What year was the 9th chapter of Acts regarding? This would have been the conversion of Paul. There is much depate regarding that also.

1 Tim was one of Pauls early writings. Paul's ministry convered many years until the time of Nero which was toward the end of the first century. Was Luke written before Paul wrote the letter to Timothy? I don't know but it makes no difference to me.

Some say Paul was clarifing Duet when he wrote And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. The problem with that is the word And which joins it to the second part. If I remember right, words not And is not in the greek vocabulary????


I would really like to discuss the part regarding Peter but I have to run...

No one showed up for my classs so let me add this, John's Epistles and Gospel were believed to have been written after the death of Paul. Somewhere between 85 to 95 AD.

 

[LeBuick]

In the providence of God, true Christians already knew which books were God's word, and they knew it from apostolic times. Church councils just made official pronouncements so that dissent could be quelled..

Good point, I read several books on when the Church went different directions. Like why do Catholics, who are Christians and appeard to come from Peter, why do they keep the apacrapha books?

Now when you say, "Christians already knew which books were God's word". Keep in mind, all the Epistles did not reach every location (if only they had email). But you are correct, what ever letters they received were believed to be divine by the early Church.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Have your friend read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict " by Josh McDowell or some of Lee Stroebells's books.

I'm getting the feeling that your friend thinks of himself as somewhat intellectual or intelligent ,therefore to smart to be a Christian. There are more facts regarding the Bible than any other publication in history.The Bible is the most scrutinized book in the history of mankind.:wavey:

 

[Jer2913]

Have your friend read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict " by Josh McDowell or some of Lee Stroebells's books.

I'm getting the feeling that your friend thinks of himself as somewhat intellectual or intelligent ,therefore to smart to be a Christian. There are more facts regarding the Bible than any other publication in history.The Bible is the most scrutinized book in the history of mankind.:wavey:

I will definately bring that book up to him, thanks!

As for being to smart to be a Christian. The way I understand it, he does believe in God (as in the God of the Bible), and I think he believes that Jesus died for his sins, and so he's a Christian I guess you could say, it's just the fact that he doesn't believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

I'm sure that it doesn't make much sense, cause it's confusing to me as well. The main thing I understand is that he doesn't consider the Bible to be the Word of God, or at least the New Testament.

Jer2913

 

[Baptist Believer]

Have your friend read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict " by Josh McDowell or some of Lee Stroebells's books.

In my experience, the Josh McDowell books are most effective for people who already want to believe, yet have a few questions. I've found them completely ineffective for those who don't want to believe.

The simple fact of the matter is that for almost everyone, their decision to believe of not believe is not really based on facts, information or intelligence, but rather on their willingness to trust God. And they can only come to the position where they can choose to trust God through the working of the Spirit.

No one comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws him (John 6:44). True faith in Christ is not a matter of intelligence or an understanding of a certain set of facts, it is rather an insight into truth provided by the Spirit with a willingness to actively follow Jesus.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

We all have different experiences with different people. I have given "Evidence" away about a dozen times or so.My experience has been different from yours in several cases.

I was an athiest. Until the moment I knew there was a God there was no appeal to me about any form of religion of any kind.I won't go into the details but once God personally revealed Himself to me I was forced into a reversal of all of my positions.No God no reason for any moral code of any kind.Once I was intellectually convinced there was a God then I HAD to make a decision.

Archeology has never proven the bible to be wrong in any way.
There is more manuscript evidence available on the Bible than any other document in the history of mankind.
Fulfilled prophecy proves the Bible is God's Word.raise: :Fish: