Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Bible Study: John 1:1. The Bible Is Not the Word of God

This item has been moved to another blog.



I have transferred the foregoing posting from my other blog, where it did not belong. Below, I will transfer a comment that this posting received.


Unfortunately, I can't agree with your sentiment based on other Scriptures that point out that God's Word (the Bible) will be perfectly preserved, etc. You say we just need to focus on Jesus, but we cannot know Jesus apart from His Word. In John 1:1 "scripture" means writings, and "inspiration" means God-breathed. The Bible may have been penned by human hands, but it is hardly the "human book" you speak of. The Bible is God's Word and it is a supernatural testament to the life of Jesus Christ and God's holy, eternal road map for His followers. If you cannot trust the Bible, you cannot trust anything about your faith.

From Jay,


Jay -- I think that I may not have what you would consider a Christian faith. It sounds like you may be trying to address a concern that does not apply to me. But I am interested in your view that there are some Bible passages that say the Bible will be perfectly preserved. Which passages say that? Also, you cite John 1:1, but I think you may mean to refer to the 2 Timothy passage. Either way, your interpretation does not seem to be based on the Greek text.


lol, this is funny, very funny... Ray in the scripture John 1:1 the "word" or in the Greek term "logos" is representing Jesus and not God's text or bible!
Much of your writing feels uneducated, like you have read a couple of scripture and tried to make a story of it!



OK, let me re-post an edited and repaired version of your comment:

"In ... John 1:1 ... "logos" [represents] Jesus .... Much of your writing feels uneducated ...."

Actually, I studied classical Greek for a couple of years, in my pre-ministerial studies. I read the entire Bible five or six times, and memorized significant portions of the New Testament. As I examined fundamentalist Christian claims, I concluded that an honest person would have to reject them. So I wound up getting a law degree from an Ivy League school. I'm not sure what this anonymous individual would consider "educated," but the evidence runs against him/her.

In the unlikely event that this person does return to this post, I would be interested in seeing a clearer statement of his/her point. It sounds like s/he did not understand what I wrote.


Mr. Woodcock,

I am perusing your blog b/c I have so enjoyed your paraphrase of Plato's "Republic."

I fundamentally (pun intended) agree with your position. However, I think your argument could (should?) be restructured. Even more basic than the notion that the Bible (or the NT) claims infallibility (which it does not) is the issue of the words attributed to Jesus. I'm sure that in your pre-ministerial days, you studied source criticism, etc. Almost no non-fundamentalist scholar today would suggest that the words attributed to Jesus in John's Gospel were directly from the lips of Jesus. Both the manner of Jesus' speaking and the style and the theology of the Gospel make it pretty clear that the 4th Gospel is not anything like a "snapshot" of Jesus. (Most non-fundamentalist scholars would say the same thing about the Synoptic Gospels, but it's not quite so obvious. Clement of Alexandria as early as the end of the 2nd century characterized John as a "spiritualized" Gospel.