Is the Bible equal to GOD?

[William]

Sometimes in interacting with Christians and observing Christians interacting with each other, I get the impression that what they refer to as 'the word of God' is GOD because it is the only thing on earth that is claimed by them to 'speak for, or on God's behalf' and they use their preferred interpretations of it to argue against other, differing interpretations.

Q: Is it right to treat a man-made object in this manner, or should such be considered - in truth - to be a form of idolatry?

Q: Is the bible used in this manner because people do not know how to commune with GOD any other way?

Q: Is GOD incapable of communion with individuals without the use of mediums, or is it a matter of most humans being incapable of communion with GOD without the use of mediums?

[2timothy316]

So no, I am certainly NOT questioning the bible's authorship, I am simply questioning the claims that Christians make about the author being GOD, and the bible backs me on that.

This is what is called an oxymoron. Rephrasing the question didn't help.

At any rate this is not a topic of interest to me. I like to talk to those that have moved beyond 'questioning the claims that Christians make about the author being GOD.' On this forum, the Bible is the highest authority here. It says it's author is God and what you feel about Christians needing to answer for in their claim doesn't matter.

"Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God." 1 Thess 2:13.

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by 2timothy316]

Good.

Your response answers the OPQ adequately. The bible is not 'equal to GOD' but is considered by many Christians to be over and above GOD.

I rest my case.

I am satisfied that the bible is an idol for those who use it as such.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

I'm still confused by this topic, the idea that the bible IS God. I have learned about God through the bible, but I don't pray to the bible. I pray to God. I may believe that God divinely inspired and guided people who wrote the bible, but then how does that mean that I believe that the bible is equal to God? God is an all powerful being, and bibles are paper books (or ebooks like the one on my Kindle).

Obviously I'm taking this too literally and there must be some figurative comparison being made, but I'm still not sure what it is. Is the argument that since we only learn about God through the bible, and those who teach only teach from the bible, that therefore the bible is exactly equal to God? Because if so, this argument is ignoring the Holy Spirit which provides us with a relationship to God.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

I'm still confused by this topic, the idea that the bible IS God. I have learned about God through the bible, but I don't pray to the bible. I pray to God. I may believe that God divinely inspired and guided people who wrote the bible, but then how does that mean that I believe that the bible is equal to God? God is an all powerful being, and bibles are paper books (or ebooks like the one on my Kindle).

Obviously I'm taking this too literally and there must be some figurative comparison being made, but I'm still not sure what it is. Is the argument that since we only learn about God through the bible, and those who teach only teach from the bible, that therefore the bible is exactly equal to God? Because if so, this argument is ignoring the Holy Spirit which provides us with a relationship to God.

I wouldn't look into it too much. It's an absurd accusation supported by really elementary reasoning.

There is nothing a Christian can do right in the eyes of some. Like the hypocrites did in Jesus day. They said John the Baptist had a demon in him for not eating but then call Jesus a glutton for eating. (Mat 11:18, 19)

Same goes for today. Christians are accused of being un-Christian when failing to follow the Bible. Yet when they do it's idolatry.

Christians can do nothing right in the eyes of the spiritually blind.

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by jgh7]

I'm still confused by this topic, the idea that the bible IS God.

Have you read the whole thread jgh7? It is questioning the claim that many Christians make that the bible is 'The word of GOD' and that in doing so, those Christians make an idol of the book.

I have learned about God through the bible, but I don't pray to the bible. I pray to God.

I have learned about ideas of GOD through many things. You might not pray 'to the bible' but you might pray to the idea of the GOD which the bible gives you images of, and those images might be idolized. Many things can be idolized by religious practices. The practice of claiming the bible as 'the word of GOD' is a form of idolatry.

I may believe that God divinely inspired and guided people who wrote the bible, but then how does that mean that I believe that the bible is equal to God?

If your claim is that the bible is the word of GOD on account of your belief that people were guided and inspired, and any other claims attached to that belief, it might indeed be the case that you see both GOD and the word of GOD as one and the same/equal.

It may not even necessarily be that one is consciously aware that this is what is being done.

God is an all powerful being, and bibles are paper books (or ebooks like the one on my Kindle).

If you read the thread you will see where that is somewhat of the position I am arguing from. GOD is a being. The bible is a book.

Obviously I'm taking this too literally and there must be some figurative comparison being made, but I'm still not sure what it is. Is the argument that since we only learn about God through the bible, and those who teach only teach from the bible, that therefore the bible is exactly equal to God?

This is the point being made. When one believes that the bible is the word of GOD and that one can 'only learn about GOD through the bible' and 'only teach from the bible' (I speak to the idea of mediums in other posts on this thread) then one is already showing signs that one is fixated on something which is actually not the truth, but is believed to be the truth.

Because if so, this argument is ignoring the Holy Spirit which provides us with a relationship to God.

The point being (and which has already been mentioned in this thread) is that if one has a relationship with GOD directly, one has no need for mediums of any sort. The bible is not required, and need not be referred to as 'the word of GOD' any more than a crucifix is required, or any other form of religious artifact and ritual.

Please read the thread carefully before responding jgh7 as it saves one having to unnecessarily having to repeat oneself

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 43 by jgh7]

The point being (and which has already been mentioned in this thread) is that if one has a relationship with GOD directly, one has no need for mediums of any sort. The bible is not required, and need not be referred to as 'the word of GOD' any more than a crucifix is required, or any other form of religious artifact and ritual.

Please read the thread carefully before responding jgh7 as it saves one having to unnecessarily having to repeat oneself

I dont follow your logic. If I have a biography of my dad but then later down the road I actually get to know my dad personally, then does the biography suddenly become irrelevant? Is it no longer useful for learning about my dad? The same applies to the bible.

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by jgh7]

I dont follow your logic. If I have a biography of my dad but then later down the road I actually get to know my dad personally, then does the biography suddenly become irrelevant? Is it no longer useful for learning about my dad?

It depends upon whether the biography about your dad was correct does it not? You might find that what you read or were told by others about your dad has very little to do with your dad. Are you able to have a relationship with your dad based on a biography which might not even be true? Or is your relationship actually only with with the imagery the biography/what others have said about your dad which were instilled within your psyche and believed by you to truly represent your dad?

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 46 by jgh7]

I dont follow your logic. If I have a biography of my dad but then later down the road I actually get to know my dad personally, then does the biography suddenly become irrelevant? Is it no longer useful for learning about my dad?

It depends upon whether the biography about your dad was correct does it not? You might find that what you read or were told by others about your dad has very little to do with your dad. Are you able to have a relationship with your dad based on a biography which might not even be true? Or is your relationship actually only with with the imagery the biography/what others have said about your dad which were instilled within your psyche and believed by you to truly represent your dad?

Like I said previously, the relationship comes through the Holy Spirit. And if your entire premise from the beginning of this thread was that the bible is false, then you posted this in the wrong subforum.

[brianbbs67]

I don't think he's saying its false. But, I am not him.

I have a question, though which may lead into another thread. When was the Bible first considered the inerring word of God?

[William]

[Replying to post 48 by jgh7]

Like I said previously, the relationship comes through the Holy Spirit. And if your entire premise from the beginning of this thread was that the bible is false, then you posted this in the wrong subforum.

Well if one is to jump into threads as you have obviously done here without reading the posts prior, what point is there in me continuing to repeat myself?
Either address what I am actually saying or cease making posts at all, but please refrain from making straw-man arguments.