1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Word versus the word

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Refreshed, Dec 9, 2002.

Top Posters
  1. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That the Word is not the same thing as the word was brought up in another thread in the Bible Versions forum. I have a few questions surrounding this.

    Since the word, "logos," is used in John 1:1-8, and the word "logos" is used in Acts 4:4 and many, many other places, then can we make a distinction between the Word of God and the word of God?

    I realize that we shouldn't worship a man made object (a book with covers and printing on the pages), but neither should we worship a man (flesh on bone with blood for life). Yet, Jesus was 100 percent man. The Bible is 100 percent paper bound in leather (or whatever). Yet, God was able to express (one of the literal meanings of logos is expression) himself perfectly the first time through the person of Jesus without error, why would he not express himself through the Bible (also a logos of God) in a perfect way? Both are expressions of God, would they then not be perfect?

    The reason I ask is that I believe in the infallibility of the scriptures, as I know that many of you do. Some say, however, that it is only perfect in the originals. Do we have any originals to prove this, or is this just conjecture?

    I know, I know, lots of questions.

    I would appreciate comments from all sides of this issue.

    I may be totally off. If so, correct me.
     
    #1 Refreshed, Dec 9, 2002
  2. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe in the infallible word of God too. The Geneva Bible! The KJV was a corruption of what was already perfect and needed no change by MAN. The KJV was the product of the "scholors" of the Anglican Church, not the Bible believing Baptists and Waldenfuguns who carried the Geneva Bible in their ministries and to their grave. God only wrote one book, the Geneva Bible!
     
    #2 Pete Richert, Dec 9, 2002
  3. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what's the Word (in John 1)? The Word he's talking about is not the text on printed paper.

    The Greek word 'logos' which is translated "word" here, is also frequently used as: Account, Cause,
    Communication, Intent, Message, Tiding. The way we think og "word" is very different from the way John though of "logos". His views was much broader. The word in this case is God's plan, God's purpose, not simply God's text. In Gen 1, God spoke the earth into creation, and it was so. Likewise, the "word" was with God, and was God.

    John doesn't call upon us to worship printed text. He calls upon us to worship God who is the creator of all things.

    "In the beginning was the Word" probably comments on the Jewish concept that the Torah existed before creation. John 1:1-3 says that the important thing to appreciate is that those words of God prophesied about Jesus; God's plan about him existed before creation (Luke 1:70).
     
    #3 Johnv, Dec 9, 2002
  4. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    11,184
    Likes Received:
    2,489
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Waldenfunguns??????... Who were they?... I moderate Baptist History and have never heard of those brethren ;) ... but I have heard of the Waldenses and I know that the Geneva and the KJV was after their time... but the Geneva and the KJV came from the Waldensian Bible... Which also came from the received text... majority text... textus receptus... and Byzantine text. Which if I'm not mistaken is one of the same and this is not even up for argumentation as it is Baptist History and fully documented!... Brother Glen Of The Primitive Baptist Brethren [​IMG]

    [ December 09, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     
    #4 tyndale1946, Dec 9, 2002
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, you can make a difference between the Word and the word. The word "logos" may mean both Christ and the written word. It may also mean the spoken word, the message, etc. But it only means one of those in a given context.
     
    #5 Pastor Larry, Dec 10, 2002
  6. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Word and the Word are different based on the context... and neither is the words of God (the distinct text of the original manuscripts).

    Jesus is the Word. The revelation of God in human flesh.

    The Bible is the Word of God. The revelation of God in written form. The words are important only in as much as the correctly express the same meanings and revelation as the originals.
     
    #6 Scott J, Dec 12, 2002
  7. Charlie T

    Charlie T New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pete, are you serious?

    If so, please explain to me why you think the Geneva Bible translation is THE Word of God. I have never heard this asserted before

    Charlie
     
    #7 Charlie T, Dec 12, 2002
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,400
    Likes Received:
    553
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Charlie - I smell a heavy dose of sarcasm in the post. :rolleyes: If you would like to know, though, start a thread and ask the question about the Geneva Bible. Think you might get many responses. :cool:

    And me? I'm LVO (Latin Vulgate Only) since it was THE only translation of the Bible for 1000+ years. No johnny-come-lately 1611 attempt for me. Go to St. Jerome, not King James. :eek:
     
    #8 Dr. Bob, Dec 13, 2002
  9. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Confutatis maledictis,
    flammis acribus addictis,
    voca me cum benedictis.
    Oro supplex et acclinis,
    cor contritum quasi cinis,
    gere curam mei finis.

    Always good after a frustrating day at work.
     
    #9 rsr, Dec 13, 2002
  10. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    11,184
    Likes Received:
    2,489
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is there a Latin interpreter on the board?... Brother Glen :confused:
     
    #10 tyndale1946, Dec 13, 2002
  11. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When the accused are confounded,
    and doomed to flames of woe,
    call me among the blessed.

    I kneel with submissive heart,
    my contrition is like ashes,
    help me in my final condition.
     
    #11 rsr, Dec 13, 2002
  12. Charlie T

    Charlie T New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    No sarcasm. I did not know if Pete was making a point to the KJVO crowd by using their argument for a different translation. I have never heard anyone elevate any translation other than KJV to the pedestal that was the described (the Word).

    And, I would like to know how they elevate a TRANSLATION above all others. (see skepticism in the last sentence)

    Charlie

    Charlie
     
    #12 Charlie T, Dec 13, 2002
  13. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, just as Christ is perfect, the original expression of God in scripture is also perfect. Copies and translations, made by imperfect man, are still God's word but not perfect in the sense the originals were.

    If you have two Christ's, one directly from God and one made by man in an attempt to accurately copy the original Christ, can the second one be perfect in the same sense as the first? If you have two sets of scripture, one directly from God and one made by man in an attempt to accurately copy the original, can the second one be perfect in the same sense as the first?

    Once you use the word "perfect" consistently in this context, you will see that is true.

    We do not have any originals, or maybe we do but mistakenly don't think they are. It is not really "conjecture" to believe the originals are perfect, because as you said, since they are from God (directly inspired), they must therefore be perfect.
     
    #13 BrianT, Dec 13, 2002
  14. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, of course. Pastor Larry mentioned context, and that is the answer. "logos" is a fairly generic word, used in many different ways for many different things.

    Here is a list of everywhere in the NT "logos" is used, and you'll quickly see that context is key. The very first time the word is used in the NT is in Matt 5:32, when talking about divorce because of the "logos" of fornication.
     
    #14 BrianT, Dec 13, 2002
  15. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, of course. Pastor Larry mentioned context, and that is the answer. "logos" is a fairly generic word, used in many different ways for many different things.

    Here is a list of everywhere in the NT "logos" is used, and you'll quickly see that context is key. The very first time the word is used in the NT is in Matt 5:32, when talking about divorce because of the "logos" of fornication.    </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you all for your answers. I suppose my confusion was in the fact that historically we call the bible the Word of God and Jesus is called the Word in John 1.
     
    #15 Refreshed, Dec 14, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...