Bible as "the word of God"

[Ranp]

Does the Bible anywhere claim to be “the word of God”? In the Bible I see the phrase “the word of God” is applied to the words of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel and as a title for Jesus Christ in Rev. 19:13 “The Word of God”, but I cannot seem to find anyplace where the Bible refers to itself with this phrase. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but does the Bible itself say this? If so, where?

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Saint Augustine, Against the letter of Mani, 397 A.D.

The Catholic Church through its authority as the pillar and ground of the Truth declared that the Bible, along with Holy Tradition, is the Word of God. That was enough for Saint Augustine, so let it be enough for us too.

Ran

 

[stevekehl]

It depends on how you define the word “true”.

Are you Bill Clinton?

 

[PJM]

=Granpa Lemon;8785283]Also, if the Bible is the word of God, then why does it contradict itself so many times?
Ever read the 4 Gospels?
It’s essentially the same story told different ways according to what the writer thought was important at the time. But the Gospels, and other books have been translated and edited and changed so many times, we are far from what the original texts said in the first place.
How do we know this?
We have about 5,000 or so scraps of text from ancient times, and almost NONE of them are the same. The Bible was changed over time.
Read Bart Ehrman’s books.

From one grandpa to the poster grandpa;

The Bible in an ABSOLUTE Sense CANNOT contradict itself, when rightly understood.

If you’d care to be more specific? perhaps i can explain further

[grandpa] Pat:thumbsup:

 

[edwest2]

The bible is true, all of it. The problem is that many fundamentalist want it to be a literal story at all times. It’s a book of faith, and should be read as a book of faith. We shouldn’t be reading it as a history book, but as a book with a lot of good history in it. Not all of it is literal, not all of it is exact, but all of the lessons and people teach us the meaning of God’s love for us and that is where the truth is.

How would you reply then, to those who consider the Bible in error over something they claim is historically true? These sorts of questions are asked here with some frequency. Some claim their desire to embrace the faith hinges on some historical writing in the Bible being literal or not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PJM]

=edwest2;8791400]How would you reply then, to those who consider the Bible in error over something they claim is historically true? These sorts of questions are asked here with some frequency. Some claim their desire to embrace the faith hinges on some historical writing in the Bible being literal or not.

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed my dad’s name By the way/

The Bible IS all about Faith and salvation. The Historical aspects relate directly to and precisly to this aspect ALONE, as it’s GOAL and purpose.

We are talking about times when most information passed from mouth to heart and heads by heads of families and prophets. Writting was very limited dues to cost, availibility of needed supplies and people who could actually read.

So the historical content is essentailly reference material to add creedence to the passed-along stories. It may or may not be 100% accurent ; But does fulfill its role in the Lessons being shared, so the accuaracy of the information that is historical is ALWAYS secondary and of LESS importance. The Bible is a “FAITH LESSONS BOOK,” not a HISTORY BOOK.

Understood in this light; one can see that TRUTH is maintained as is required of the Bible.


God Bless my friend,
Pat

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed [my dad’s name By the way/

The Bible IS all about Faith and salvation. The Historical aspects relate directly to and precisly to this aspect ALONE, as it’s GOAL and purpose.

We are talking about times when most information passed from mouth to heart and heads by heads of families and prophets. Writting was very limited dues to cost, availibility of needed supplies and people who could actually read.

So the historical content is essentailly reference material to add creedence to the passed-along stories. It may or may not be 100% accurent ; But does fulfill its role in the Lessons being shared, so the accuaracy of the information that is historical is ALWAYS secondary and of LESS importance. The Bible is a “FAITH LESSONS BOOK,” not a HISTORY BOOK.

Understood in this light; one can see that TRUTH is maintained as is required of the Bible.


God Bless my friend,
Pat

I must disagree. Just as Jesus did things only God could do - raise the dead, give sight to the blind and cleanse the lepers - without technology, we recognize that there was and is an actual Jesus Christ - a physical person.

What about Original Sin? And what about the historical truth of it? From the Catholic Answers Library:

"Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390)."

There have been a lot of posts here in the past that attempt to explain that the Hebrew word for man is Adam and that he was not an individual. The Bible tells us otherwise:

bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm

If not for an actual event in human history, why was Christ literally born?

Peace,
Ed
[/quote]

 

[DFWChristian]

2 Timothy 3:16 I believe says all scripture is God breathed. Now there are some letters that are contradictory to the Holy scriptures and those letters are therefore not in the Bible.

 

[PJM]

=edwest2;8794509]I must disagree. Just as Jesus did things only God could do - raise the dead, give sight to the blind and cleanse the lepers - without technology, we recognize that there was and is an actual Jesus Christ - a physical person.

What about Original Sin? And what about the historical truth of it? From the Catholic Answers Library:

"Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

I don’t dismiss Adam and Eve at ALL< I accept the biblical version as truth. But how that relates to my post and “history” is a leap I can’t grasp:shrug:

There have been a lot of posts here in the past that attempt to explain that the Hebrew word for man is Adam and that he was not an individual. The Bible tells us otherwise:

bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm

If not for an actual event in human history, why was Christ literally born?

I either blew it or you MISSED by MILES what I was saying?

Peace,
Ed

I must disagree. Just as Jesus did things only God could do - raise the dead, give sight to the blind and cleanse the lepers - without technology, we recognize that there was and is an actual Jesus Christ - a physical person.

Matt.10
[1] And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.
[2] The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
[5] These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,
[6] but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[7] And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
[8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[stevekehl]

Thank you for responding.

@Zenkia: This verse does not answer either of my questions, which are quite specific.

@ Saphia: 1) So, to be extremely specific, there is no place in the Bible where the Bible is called “the word of God” in exactly those words. There are plenty of references to “the word of God” in exactly that phrase, but it never refers to the Bible, and always refers to something else! 2) I agree with you that Catholics may call the Bible “the word of God”, not because the Bible says it, but because the Church has said it.

Writers of Scripture could only write about their own ministries and messages. The Bible records the “word of the Lord” in 255 verses and the “word of God” in 48 more. Then the four Gospels record the sayings of Jesus who is part of the Trinity. Paul calls Scripture God-breathed ( 2 Timothy 3:16) and Peter infers that Pauls writings are Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Individual writers of Scripture could not have known that a collection of sacred writings wouls be compiled called the Bible and therefor you won’t find Scripture addressing the entirety of the Bible. The closest we have to that is Paul writing to Timothy and Peter writing about Paul’s letters. Contrary to what many believe, most of the NT was written within 30 years of Christ’s death (John’s writings dating 70s to 90s AD), so there might have been a rudimentary canon of scripture when Peter wrote his second epistle.
As for the basis of the CC teaching that the Bible is the word of God, the church teachings must have biblical support. Church leaders can’t just say something because they want it to be true.