the infallible Word of God

[Alexigail]

Sure they have, but if you read the thread differently that's perfectly fine. I don't think it's a bad thing that people have strong beliefs about this. I'm just answering the OPs question with my point of view.

[milovany]

Ah. Thanks for another rousing rendition of "I am a real Christian and your are not."

The song never gets old.

And yet not one, single person has said anything of the sort. :)

It's been purely academic or "this is what I believe."

 

Agreeing. I have no idea which post Joanne is replying to since nothing was quoted. I haven't see any "my Christianity is better than your Christianity" in this thread.

[Catwoman]

I'm probably opening myself up for massive amounts of tomato throwing and potentially opening this thread for further derailment (which I'd really hate, because I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion), but here goes --

 

When a thread is going along fine, and people who haven't previously participated in the thread start posting about how said thread is likely to turn into a trainwreck soon if other people who haven't yet participated in the thread happen to start commenting -- then you're (generic) trying to instigate a derailment yourself. Because there's absolutely no other point in posting comments like that. Think about it, please.

 

And yes, I realize by posting this I'm falling into the "trap" that was "set" (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not) for the sole purpose of causing derailment. But I felt it needed to be said here to hopefully keep this thread on topic. If we need further discussion on the matter, let's please start another thread. I'll be happy to continue my comments there.

 

Oh, please. :rolleyes:

 

Give me a break. You know full well that I wasn't "setting a trap" or intentionally trying to derail the thread. You're being ridiculous. :glare:

 

It is ridiculous that people are becoming offended at every little joking comment anyone makes, and I have no intention of apologizing for my post, because I see nothing wrong with it. I'm actually kind of shocked that you would think I had some sort of ill intent. :confused:

[TracyP]

Catwoman, (OP here) I saw nothing wrong with your post. EXCEPT that I read it while brushing my teeth last night and toothpaste almost hit the screen, lol. DH looked at me like I had 4 heads while I ran to the bathroom snorting. I love humor, it makes the world a better place and that is exactly how I read your post.

 

Unless there is some "inside joke" that I am missing, I have seen no rude, my Christianity is better than yours posts. I was scared to post, but this has been a great thread. It really is helpful to see how others view this issue. Keep it coming!

[Catwoman]

Catwoman, (OP here) I saw nothing wrong with your post. EXCEPT that I read it while brushing my teeth last night and toothpaste almost hit the screen, lol. DH looked at me like I had 4 heads while I ran to the bathroom snorting. I love humor, it makes the world a better place and that is exactly how I read your post.

 

Unless there is some "inside joke" that I am missing, I have seen no rude, my Christianity is better than yours posts. I was scared to post, but this has been a great thread. It really is helpful to see how others view this issue. Keep it coming!

 

 

Thanks, Tracy! :)

 

Since you were the OP, I particularly appreciate it that you understood my intentions. I actually think this is a very good topic, and hope no one derails it "for real."

 

Pawz4me, if you're still reading this thread, sorry my last post was so cranky. I was up most of last night, and then my ds woke up with a sore throat today and we'd just gotten back from the doctor... so I wasn't exactly in the best frame of mind to be posting. :blush: I should have just stayed off the computer!!!

[unsinkable]

 

 

Thanks, Tracy! :)

 

Since you were the OP, I particularly appreciate it that you understood my intentions. I actually think this is a very good topic, and hope no one derails it "for real."

 

Pawz4me, if you're still reading this thread, sorry my last post was so cranky. I was up most of last night, and then my ds woke up with a sore throat today and we'd just gotten back from the doctor... so I wasn't exactly in the best frame of mind to be posting. :blush: I should have just stayed off the computer!!!

 

 

Aw ww...I hope your DS is OK. My kids have been random throat scratchiness. I think it's allergies.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I often hear the Bible called the word of God, but when you read John 1:1 (In the beginning was the word...) it seems that "the word" does not mean written words, but something different. Do most Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God and is there biblical basis for this?

 

 

I haven't read any responses.

 

Most Christians do say that the Bible is the word of God. However, John 1:1 specifies that Jesus is the Word of God. So I would say that the Bible has some of God's words, but the Word of God is Jesus.

[Coco_Clark]

Commenting mostly because I want to see what more educated people than myself write. :p. This was a subject of so much debate when my husband and I were searching for a "home church", as people with a deep respect for the bible and yet give the side eye to the thought that its a science text, or self-teaching and self-apparent, or infallible. My personal balance is that it's an amazing, authoritative book of histories, poems, legends, and letters written in a specific time and to a specific people. It was given to us by the church, and therefor is best translated by that church. And finding "that" church was a whole nother bag!!!

[Pawz4me]

Pawz4me, if you're still reading this thread, sorry my last post was so cranky. I was up most of last night, and then my ds woke up with a sore throat today and we'd just gotten back from the doctor... so I wasn't exactly in the best frame of mind to be posting. :blush: I should have just stayed off the computer!!!

 

It's okay. I certainly could've been more tactful in how I worded my post. I just get SO frustrated when interesting, serious threads get derailed. It's a problem on every message board I'm on, but this one takes it to truly epic levels.

 

I hope your son is okay, and that you can get some rest.

[Quiver0f10]

Your summary is Western European-specific. In the East, the original Greek was not abandoned. There was no need for translation, so nuances of meaning were not lost. The line of interpretation and understanding was unbroken. And they wrote about it, a lot.

 

 

 

Agree.

I am going to show my ignorance here, but where would I look if I wanted one of the east original Greek Bible translations? This is an area of interest to my husband and he would love to have a Hebrew/Greek Bible. I have a few in my CBD cart, but I am still searching before buying. I want something that would be closest to the original.

[Quiver0f10]

The Orthodox Study Bible uses the NKJV (with some small corrections) and the Septuagint OT. The Septuagint was what was in use at the time of Christ. All of the NT quotes are taken from it, not the Masoretic text, which is used in most Western Bibles, and which was completed hundreds of years after Christ. There are some fairly significant differences in these texts.

 

Eg. You know the verse "Train up a child in the way he should go,.."--that's not in the Septuagint. It is a later addition.

Many parts of Daniel are missing in the Masoretic.

The verse "a virgin shall conceive" becomes "a maiden shall conceive" in the Masoretic. Most modern translators "borrow" from the Septuagint for this verse, as it completely upends the dual nature of Christ, a foundational Christian dogma.

 

The Orthodox Study Bible is available from Amazon and also from Conciliar Press.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

Thank you!

[Catwoman]

It appears that our Resident Troll is back again tonight with yet another new name in post 66.

 

At least he bumped up an interesting thread this time around, so I'm almost glad to see him. ;)

[Paintedlady]

Commenting mostly because I want to see what more educated people than myself write. :p. This was a subject of so much debate when my husband and I were searching for a "home church", as people with a deep respect for the bible and yet give the side eye to the thought that its a science text, or self-teaching and self-apparent, or infallible. My personal balance is that it's an amazing, authoritative book of histories, poems, legends, and letters written in a specific time and to a specific people. It was given to us by the church, and therefor is best translated by that church. And finding "that" church was a whole nother bag!!!

 

I would say it was given to the church, not given by the church. And my understanding of "the church" is not a denomination or a specific group of people in a specific building, but "the church" to me is global, meaning all Christians throughout time.

[Celia]

I'm aware of the history. But Tyndale has his issues as well. He drew from the "corrupt" Vulgate himself and the Greek text he translated from was a rather rushed version from Erasmus which itself came from later texts that contained quite a few mistakes, not early scriptures. To draw the line at which you will not pass at 1500 seems sort of arbitrary in that light

 

If we're debating the meaning of Greek words the most reasonable things to reference would not be Tyndale or version based on his work. They would be the earliest scriptures we have and/or modern translations by knowledgeable scholars that have used those scriptures.

 

My Oxford NRSV is one of those and it dos indeed say "him", not "it". The seems quite reasonable and consistent considered in the context of John 1:14 and indeed the rest of the Gospel of John.

True, Tyndale used the Vulgate (it's what was available), but the versions I quoted after him didn't. The point still stands that there were Greek scholars who believed the doctrine of the trinity that saw that the Greek didn't demand a personal pronoun for logos. If you take the time to look up other times that word is used in the NT, you'll see that this holds true. As I also reasonably pointed out, 1500's weren't an "arbitrary line" that I chose out of convenience. The fact that most translators prior to the KJV used 'it' rather than 'him' shows that it's a valid way to translate the text. Yes, the newer versions used 'him'. I believe that it's because of their doctrinal bias that they do so. Earlier versions clearly show that's not required.

[Celia]

 

The quote was from GGardner, not me.

I know. I was agreeing with you.

[Celia]

Celia, how does this reconcile with the verses later in the same chapter, which say that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" and so on in about verses 14?

Quite easily. John moves from impersonal personification to the actual person. Christ was the word made flesh in that everything he showed us the plan and purpose of God, which is what logos means....

The word logos, from which we get the word ‘logic’, is defined as this by Vines: denotes (I) "the expression of thought," not the mere name of an object, (a) as embodying a conception or idea, e.g., Luke 7:7; 1 Cor. 14:9,19; (b ) a saying or statement From another source:

Logos – from the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon:

• Logos; logos, ho: (A) the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed (Latin: oratio), and, ( b ) the inward thought itself (Latin: ratio.)
  
• Latin: vox, oratio, that which is said or spoken.
  
• Latin: ratio, thought, reason.
  
• Ho LOGOS, the Logos or Word, comprising both senses of Thought and Word. (New Testament.)
  

The logos is God's reason, purpose, and plan. It is what is what we call the "Word of God", whether spoken, written or conceived in His mind. That's why in verse 18 we read that "¹⁸ No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." No one has seen God - Jesus wasn't literally God. But he did declare him - he made him known through every word and action in his life.

[Alenee]

Quite easily. John moves from impersonal personification to the actual person. Christ was the word made flesh in that everything he showed us the plan and purpose of God, which is what logos means....

The word logos, from which we get the word ‘logic’, is defined as this by Vines: denotes (I) "the expression of thought," not the mere name of an object, (a) as embodying a conception or idea, e.g., Luke 7:7; 1 Cor. 14:9,19; (b ) a saying or statement From another source:

Logos – from the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon:

• Logos; logos, ho: (A) the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed (Latin: oratio), and, ( b ) the inward thought itself (Latin: ratio.)
  
• Latin: vox, oratio, that which is said or spoken.
  
• Latin: ratio, thought, reason.
  
• Ho LOGOS, the Logos or Word, comprising both senses of Thought and Word. (New Testament.)
  

The logos is God's reason, purpose, and plan. It is what is what we call the "Word of God", whether spoken, written or conceived in His mind. That's why in verse 18 we read that "¹⁸ No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." No one has seen God - Jesus wasn't literally God. But he did declare him - he made him known through every word and action in his life.

 

 

So what I'm seeing in your post is a bias to certain definitions because you're not Trinitarian. Is that right? The reason I'm asking is because this is a very Trinitarian thread. I'm not trying to say anything about your beliefs per se, but it should be, imo, made clear the side one is coming from in a topic of this sort. Kind of like literary analysis...know the author's background...

[Coco_Clark]

 

I would say it was given to the church, not given by the church. And my understanding of "the church" is not a denomination or a specific group of people in a specific building, but "the church" to me is global, meaning all Christians throughout time.

 

 

I guess what I meant by that was there were many many spiritual writings floating around and it was a church that decided which ones were scripture, bound them all together, and gave them to the rest of us. I am familiar with the idea of the global church, but whether you believe that is what is meant by "church" or not, you have to admit it wasn't a global church that organized the bible. It was a specific committee of specific church leaders from a specific denomination.

[milovany]

It was a specific committee of specific church leaders from a specific denomination.

 

I agree with your post although might say in this last part, "It was a specific committee of specific church leaders from the 'one holy, catholic and apostolic' church that existed at the time" (since there was as yet no denominations). What do you think?

[Kathryn]

So what I'm seeing in your post is a bias to certain definitions because you're not Trinitarian. Is that right? The reason I'm asking is because this is a very Trinitarian thread. I'm not trying to say anything about your beliefs per se, but it should be, imo, made clear the side one is coming from in a topic of this sort. Kind of like literary analysis...know the author's background...

As Alenee said above, now that it is clear that you are not Trinitarian, your assertions make sense.

 

She stated in another thread that she is Christadelphian.

 

What Christadelphians believe about the Trinity: http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/wcb/notrinit.html

[Coco_Clark]

 

 

I agree with your post although might say in this last part, "It was a specific committee of specific church leaders from the 'one holy, catholic and apostolic' church that existed at the time" (since there was as yet no denominations). What do you think?

 

 

Thank you Milovany, that is better :)

[Celia]

So what I'm seeing in your post is a bias to certain definitions because you're not Trinitarian. Is that right? The reason I'm asking is because this is a very Trinitarian thread. I'm not trying to say anything about your beliefs per se, but it should be, imo, made clear the side one is coming from in a topic of this sort. Kind of like literary analysis...know the author's background...

How is this a "very trinitarian thread"? I was commenting on the Bible - specifically the phrase 'the word' in Jn. 1, as it related to the topic at hand. I didn't see a 'trinitarians only' sign. All translations have a bias, so I provided several to show that the personal pronoun in John 1 was indeed a biased translation and could be understood in another manner, as was relevant to the topic at hand.

[Celia]

She stated in another thread that she is Christadelphian.

 

What Christadelphians believe about the Trinity: http://www.christade...b/notrinit.html

Yes, that's right, thanks for posting a link. To sum it up, I believe there's one God, the Father. And that Jesus Christ is God's son.

[WishboneDawn]

How is this a "very trinitarian thread"? I was commenting on the Bible - specifically the phrase 'the word' in Jn. 1, as it related to the topic at hand. I didn't see a 'trinitarians only' sign. All translations have a bias, so I provided several to show that the personal pronoun in John 1 was indeed a biased translation and could be understood in another manner, as was relevant to the topic at hand.

 

 

I don't think Alenee menat that your comments weren't welcome, only that most of the comments are coming from the perspective of Trinitarians. We were all sort of waddling along, happily assuming you were one as well and confused as all get out by your comments. Now that we understand where you're coming from we can step outside that perspective and see your comments in a new light. I also don't think she meant anything bad by saying "bias". Again, by understanding where you're coming from we see your bias but that also makes our bias apparent.

[Alenee]

Celia, I won't say all, but most here were posting from the perspective of a belief in the Triune God, however trying to figure out what "infallible" meant with regards to the "Word" (w)ord) of God referenced in the beginning verses of the Gospel of John. When I'm reading opinions, I like to know what perspective a person is coming from. I was clarifying. No harm intended. Please forgive me if I've offended you.

[Celia]

Okay, no offense taken. As a non-trinitarian, I'm sort of used to being treated rudely by some Christians and I guess I've become a little hyper-sensitive. I often feel between two worlds in the homeschooling community and it gets tiresome, especially as I love discussing Scripture.

[Alenee]

Celia,

 

I'm sorry you've felt that way. You're not alone. I've been shunned by a few since converting to Orthodoxy and I don't feel like I quite fit in anymore in other groups.

 

:grouphug: