But By Every Word of God

[Dondi]

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

To literalist evangelicals, the above scripture, along with certain other passages, leaves no room for doubt that the Holy Bible is inerrant in every word penned down by the writers, as inspired by thbe Holy Spirit. There are those who would even venture to proclaim that a certain version of the bible is the only inspired one available. As a result, it has caused evangleicals such an umbrage toward those who disagree in those literalists views. And that is unfortunate.

I, myself, once believes that all the very words of scripture were inspired by God. Once. But in recent years, I've called myself to doubt this, much to my distress. I mean, I would like to very much believe that there are no errors in the bible, and I have resisted such notions for a long while. I've fought tooth and nail over this with my own intellect, but alas, the evidence before me has caused my to take some sobering re-evaluation of what I've always held as true.

And one dilemma that would surely develop out of all this will be a stern diversion from what my own church believes, if I chose to make it vocal. Indeed, I have already questioned my pastor concerning which color robe Jesus was wearing at his trial and crucifixion (I asserted that Matthew was colored blind, my pastor stated that what Matthew saw was a blood covered purple robe). But I know if I were to throw that wrench into that cog, the results would cause such a distraction and so upset the great work of the church that I hesitate to even entertain the thought of making waves. Why ruin a good thing for the sake of making a point? I'm content right now to just allow things to remain as they are.

Still, though, for my own inner tumoil in all this, I have to come up with an alternate explanation for the above scripture verse, if I am to retain faith in the bible I've grown so accustomed to.

English language is one of the richest languages in the world, having the tendancy to be so flexible in terms, definitions, and homonymous words. That is why, in part, that there are so many English versions to the bible. For example, one of the problems with the KJV is that the word 'hell' is consistently chosen for at least three other terms that mean different things: hades, gehenna, and tartarus. Hell is even equated with certain other phrases such as lake of fire. This unfortunately results in a less than accurate interpretation of the passages in question.

In the above passage, where Jesus is being tempted in the wilderness, it is easy to interpret 'every word' as the very words in print on the pages of the bible. On the other hand, I could equally argue that the word 'word' could encompass a set of instructions that comprise a 'message'. From tis point of view, one does not need to take a literalist apporoach to the bible. Rather that one can glean from a passage the intended jest of what the author is trying to convey, even though certain facts may be wrong or certain words are misused. So to say that Man must live...'by every word of God'... the inspiration of God can come through the pen of the writers errant words, since the 'message' or 'word' remains intact.

And this is basically my current view of scripture.

 

[wil]

Namaste Dondi,

Nice contemplations. And perfectly exemplifies what I get accused of on a regular basis. Pulling the rug out from under folks and leaving them with nothing.

Your post went through your turmoil and thought process and what you are left with is what I am left with. And I think it is glorious not to be tied to the litteral, to the innerant. It is a freedom, the knowing that you can be connected with G!d and follow Jesus without having to worry about trying to justify that Judas was hanged and then fell and his guts spilled out...even though there is no way any eyewitness account would mention one without the other if both happenned.

 

[GlorytoGod]

To literalist evangelicals, the above scripture, along with certain other passages, leaves no room for doubt that the Holy Bible is inerrant in every word penned down by the writers, as inspired by thbe Holy Spirit. There are those who would even venture to proclaim that a certain version of the bible is the only inspired one available. As a result, it has caused evangleicals such an umbrage toward those who disagree in those literalists views. And that is unfortunate.

I, myself, once believes that all the very words of scripture were inspired by God. Once. But in recent years, I've called myself to doubt this, much to my distress. I mean, I would like to very much believe that there are no errors in the bible, and I have resisted such notions for a long while. I've fought tooth and nail over this with my own intellect, but alas, the evidence before me has caused my to take some sobering re-evaluation of what I've always held as true.

And one dilemma that would surely develop out of all this will be a stern diversion from what my own church believes, if I chose to make it vocal. Indeed, I have already questioned my pastor concerning which color robe Jesus was wearing at his trial and crucifixion (I asserted that Matthew was colored blind, my pastor stated that what Matthew saw was a blood covered purple robe). But I know if I were to throw that wrench into that cog, the results would cause such a distraction and so upset the great work of the church that I hesitate to even entertain the thought of making waves. Why ruin a good thing for the sake of making a point? I'm content right now to just allow things to remain as they are.

Still, though, for my own inner tumoil in all this, I have to come up with an alternate explanation for the above scripture verse, if I am to retain faith in the bible I've grown so accustomed to.

English language is one of the richest languages in the world, having the tendancy to be so flexible in terms, definitions, and homonymous words. That is why, in part, that there are so many English versions to the bible. For example, one of the problems with the KJV is that the word 'hell' is consistently chosen for at least three other terms that mean different things: hades, gehenna, and tartarus. Hell is even equated with certain other phrases such as lake of fire. This unfortunately results in a less than accurate interpretation of the passages in question.

In the above passage, where Jesus is being tempted in the wilderness, it is easy to interpret 'every word' as the very words in print on the pages of the bible. On the other hand, I could equally argue that the word 'word' could encompass a set of instructions that comprise a 'message'. From tis point of view, one does not need to take a literalist apporoach to the bible. Rather that one can glean from a passage the intended jest of what the author is trying to convey, even though certain facts may be wrong or certain words are misused. So to say that Man must live...'by every word of God'... the inspiration of God can come through the pen of the writers errant words, since the 'message' or 'word' remains intact.

And this is basically my current view of scripture.

Yogananda would probably say something along the lines of this, the word of God is the sacred sylable Om or Amen and it is this vibration or word that is the creation in which we exist, In Genesis God spoke a created everything etc.

its a theory anyway

 

[path_of_one]

Hi, Dondi- I sympathize with your intellectual plight. Though I may come across as happily a non-literalist, it would be so easy and clear if literalist inerrancy were true. But, like you, I found that I could not reconcile what I learned about the ancient context and linguistics and still hold that the English Bible (in any translation) was perfectly inerrant.

What I can believe is that, as you are saying, no matter how errant a translation might be, or even a problem with discrepancies in the alleged eye-witness accounts themselves, that the "word of God" (His message to His people) will always be inerrant and wholly true for any person sincerely seeking His wisdom and guidance. Furthermore, there is a richness in the "word of God" as G2G points out- the Word is not only God's messages to us, but also the Christ, and that through which God creates everything. The Word is far more than a bunch of English words written in the Bible- it is living, breathing, creative, and loving.

To me, the phrase reads perfectly- that we are not only to live by the material and physical, but by the spiritual- by every Word of God: His message through the sacred scriptures, His Son Jesus Christ, and His divine frequency or sound (as G2G explains) through which the entire universe is manifested. Not just clinging to the scriptures. Not just clinging to the Christ without scriptures. Not just to this idea of creative vibration of God. To all of this- by every Word of God.

Really quite beautiful when you look at the whole Bible and all the meanings of "The Word," isn't it? Now, for all I know, it may be a mistranslation into English that Christ, the Word of God, "every word of God," and so on is all translated as "word." Maybe originally it was different words. But I do believe that God has a true and inspired message that comes to me... even if through mistranslation! I have faith in God's promise, even if I do not believe in the inerrancy of the human hands that have penned and re-penned the Bible in so many different languages all over the world.

But I do understand your point in terms of not making waves at your church. To me, it is about appropriate times and places to discuss more difficult aspects of one's faith that tend to come up after a long time of study of Christianity and the Bible. As Paul points out, we don't want to cause others to stumble in their faith. What I find is that it is a very difficult thing to discern when people need discomfort to grow in their faith versus when their faith is too delicate to yet withstand discomfort. The "dark night of the soul" is, for a person prepared for it in their relationship to God, something that is trying but ultimately deepens faith and commitment to Christ. But for a person that is not prepared for it and has it foisted upon them, it can be very damaging and cause them to despair. I am still learning how to discern in these matters, so my general rule is that my questioning goes here and in my journals and in discussions with pastors and others who are fully capable of handling such discussion without despairing. At church, I participate and largely keep my mouth shut. At Bible study, it is somewhere in between- but it's a small group of long-time Christians and so exploration isn't often going to cause an uproar. They know and I know that questions will all be resolved in God's time, and it is not important for us all to agree in everything at every moment.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Dondi —

You're very close (if not bang on) with the Catholic position on this.

"Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... "
What this means is that whilst there might well be material errors in Scripture, nevertheless the text reveals the work and the will of God ... without insisting that every single written word is infallible.

Dei Verbum (The Word of God)

I think you'll find a lot there you agree with.

Thomas

 

[immortalitylost]

The word of God is love. It is a message written in many works and in many things. It is universally interpreted and understood. It is divinely inspired. And it shines through brilliantly out of the pages of the bible.

God is in everything, and he speaks through love.

Oh man do I sound like a hippie right now...

Yes, yes I did have to ruin that beautiful message with cheap humor. I'm sorry. Carry on...

 

[Faithfulservant]

To literalist evangelicals, the above scripture, along with certain other passages, leaves no room for doubt that the Holy Bible is inerrant in every word penned down by the writers, as inspired by thbe Holy Spirit. There are those who would even venture to proclaim that a certain version of the bible is the only inspired one available. As a result, it has caused evangleicals such an umbrage toward those who disagree in those literalists views. And that is unfortunate.

I, myself, once believes that all the very words of scripture were inspired by God. Once. But in recent years, I've called myself to doubt this, much to my distress. I mean, I would like to very much believe that there are no errors in the bible, and I have resisted such notions for a long while. I've fought tooth and nail over this with my own intellect, but alas, the evidence before me has caused my to take some sobering re-evaluation of what I've always held as true.

And one dilemma that would surely develop out of all this will be a stern diversion from what my own church believes, if I chose to make it vocal. Indeed, I have already questioned my pastor concerning which color robe Jesus was wearing at his trial and crucifixion (I asserted that Matthew was colored blind, my pastor stated that what Matthew saw was a blood covered purple robe). But I know if I were to throw that wrench into that cog, the results would cause such a distraction and so upset the great work of the church that I hesitate to even entertain the thought of making waves. Why ruin a good thing for the sake of making a point? I'm content right now to just allow things to remain as they are.

Still, though, for my own inner tumoil in all this, I have to come up with an alternate explanation for the above scripture verse, if I am to retain faith in the bible I've grown so accustomed to.

English language is one of the richest languages in the world, having the tendancy to be so flexible in terms, definitions, and homonymous words. That is why, in part, that there are so many English versions to the bible. For example, one of the problems with the KJV is that the word 'hell' is consistently chosen for at least three other terms that mean different things: hades, gehenna, and tartarus. Hell is even equated with certain other phrases such as lake of fire. This unfortunately results in a less than accurate interpretation of the passages in question.

In the above passage, where Jesus is being tempted in the wilderness, it is easy to interpret 'every word' as the very words in print on the pages of the bible. On the other hand, I could equally argue that the word 'word' could encompass a set of instructions that comprise a 'message'. From tis point of view, one does not need to take a literalist apporoach to the bible. Rather that one can glean from a passage the intended jest of what the author is trying to convey, even though certain facts may be wrong or certain words are misused. So to say that Man must live...'by every word of God'... the inspiration of God can come through the pen of the writers errant words, since the 'message' or 'word' remains intact.

And this is basically my current view of scripture.

Dondi I wanted to answer your post because it was an issue that I had myself some years back. Im hoping that my discoveries might help.

First of all, I agree with your pastor about the color robe Matthew saw is what he thought he saw. One of the main points of the validity of the ministry of Jesus was that there were 4 completely different testimonies from 4 different people in 4 different walks of life. If 4 people witnessed an accident the details would be shaky but guaranteed they would have the major stuff the same.. the color car may be different from person to person but you definitely know that car A hit car B head on.. Im sure there is a better analogy but you know its true. Its human nature. The minor points are going to be different but the major stuff.. coincides to provides a true story of a man named Jesus of Nazareth claiming to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies and His ministry and miracles on this earth.

also, I do not think that the english language is rich at all.. I think it pales in comparison to greek and hebrew which the original texts were written in. look at the word Love in the greek. There were 4 versions agape eros philia and storge ... all we have is love. Our word hell is what we use in place of words like hades sheol gehenna which all mean different things. These are just two examples of how lacking our language is in comparison.

I think the words in the original texts are what should be used for in depth study if someone was wanting some meatier bits of Gods Word.. this is what I have found personally. However, the message does stay the same throughout in the english and across the versions and will sustain any Christian in this life and the spiritual bread of life.

The Holy Spirit is the teacher and He is the revealer of the Truth that is Jesus Christ and He will use any version to do that.

You can take this any way you want to.. I hope that maybe something I said helped you, Dondi. Because Ive been doubtful in the past and Gods always faithful in answering my doubts when I keep my trust in Him.

 

[Dondi]

Well, thank you, FS. I understand about the testimony of two or more witnesses, even if the minors don't agree. That kind of thing stands up in court. But no matter how 'corrupt' the scriptures may seem to be, as accusations fly toward certain versions from those who hold to one particular version, there the basic message remains and the fundamentals (if I may use that term) are still intact.

I have been reading a book on the history of the English bible and I'm finding it fascinating how the KJV came to be. I think those who hold to one version might be surprised to learn what the basic sources went into translating the KJV. Latin Vulgate, anyone?

 

[Dream]

Dondi, I understand having such a big difference with your minister, and I'm not sure myself what to do about it. Right now I do not have enough experience to decide. Now that you have a new understanding, would you transmit it to the next generation? Can you teach them how to come to their own understanding, and what if you don't?

 

[Dondi]

Dondi, I understand having such a big difference with your minister, and I'm not sure myself what to do about it. Right now I do not have enough experience to decide. Now that you have a new understanding, would you transmit it to the next generation? Can you teach them how to come to their own understanding, and what if you don't?

If by the next generation you mean my children, only if their spiritual growth becomes stagnate in the paradigm they're in. As long as they are seeking God and seeking His Will for their lives, they are fine. Let them find their own bumps in the road. I'll be there to help repair the damage.