Believers, how does your god talk to you?

Originally posted by josephw
Other than what we see in creation, no.
God has said all he is going to say in his word the bible.
There is no new revelation of his will being given to man. We now have all we need to know concerning his will for man contained in scripture.
Any doubt of this will only lead to error.

maybe youre not saved and he doesnt talk to you

Originally posted by josephw
God speaks to us today through his word the bible. If anyone says otherwise they are dead wrong!

The phrase logos tou Theou, generally translated as “word of God,” in the NT hardly ever refers to a written word (i.e., “scripture” ), but almost always to verbal teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Exceptions are Matthew 15:6 and Mark 7:13, where the phrase refers to statements in the Torah. (In Luke 3:2, it refers to John the Baptist.) The same holds for the phrase logos tou kyriou, “word of the lord.” To be sure, these teachings are recorded in the NT.

Further, and theologically more important, logos does not simply mean “word” (whether written or spoken), but is a much broader term that can mean pattern, principle, reason, thought, reckoning, meaning... In Chinese bibles, it is translated as Tao: the Way, the way things are manifest. The Greek word that strictly means word, or speech, or saying, is rema.

In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, logos refers to an aspect of God—perhaps wisdom (e.g., Proverbs 3:19) or the Christ (ho Christos) as logos incarnate or manifest in human form (without pursuing the theology here)—not scripture.

____________________________

The two NT passages that seem to generally be used to refer to “inspired scripture” are Second Timothy 3:16 and Second Peter 1:20, 21. These passages are addressed below—
_____________________________

Second Timothy

NRS 2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it,

15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

______________________________

This appears to be the only NT text in which the word theopneustos, inspired or God-breathed, is found (or, at least, that I could find).

First of all, the ancient Greek texts have no punctuation, or differentiation between capital and lower-case letters, so the meaning partly derives from how it is punctuated.

Secondly, there is no verb at all in verse 16 in the Greek.

Thirdly, the word graphe in verse 16 just means “writing.” (The verb form is grapho; the noun occurs some 33 times in the NT, where it refers to OT texts.)

Fourthly, graphe refers back to iera grammata, “sacred learning,” in verse 15—learning which the reader has known “from childhood,” and can only refer to the written Torah.

Therefore, verse 16 should be read as a continuation from 14 and 15—in a single continuous sentence, viz.—

“15 and how from childhood you [2nd person singular: i.e., Timothy] have known the sacred teachings [learnings, letters of the alphabet] that are able to instruct you for salvation through confidence (pisteos) in Christ Jesus, 16 all writing God-inspired and useful...etc., etc.”

It seems crystal clear that this passage refers to the Hebrew scriptures.

______________________________

Second Peter

NRS 2 Peter 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Again, graphe simply means writing. And “prophecy” (prophetia) can mean any inspired message, declaration or utterance, or simply an intelligible message or proclamation.

Translating from the Greek—

“First, you must recognize that all prophecy-writing (graphes) personal interpretation not has been, not certainly human desire has yielded prophecy at any time, but by means of the holy spirit are caused humans (anthropoi) to speak.”

____________________________

The phrases “word of YHVH” (dabar YHVH) in the OT, and “word of God” and “word of the Lord” in the NT refer to teachings, commands, principles, proclamations that are inspired by God. These sayings and teachings are certainly recorded in the texts. But there is no clear authority in the biblical canon (nor in the apostolic tradition, so far as I know) for supposing that they refer to the texts themselves; or that they are inerrantly transcribed in the texts; or that the NT writers thought they were composing “sacred scripture”; or that the canonical collection should be treated as one self-interpreting single book of quasi single-authorship.

This seems to all be latter-day protestant doctrine* (e.g., post-Luther), based on rather loose interpretation of the biblical texts. I think that anyone who treats the biblical texts themselves as the logos tou theou (especially if they mean logos in the Johanine sense) is in danger of an idolatry of the “graven word.”

* Which is not to imply either that all protestants go there, or that any use of the phrase "word of God" in respect to the Bible is necessarily idolatrous: that depends on how one means it... There is a definite danger there, however.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
maybe youre not saved and he doesnt talk to you

Am I special that God should speak to me audibly? God speaks to me though his word the bible. That is how he speaks to you and everyone else.

Is this so hard to accept? That God has spoken and revealed his word completely, and that all we need is contained in the bible?
What more is needed? More miracles, more signs and wonders?

Originally posted by vistesd
The phrase logos tou Theou, generally translated as “word of God,” in the NT hardly ever refers to a written word (i.e., “scripture” ), but almost always to verbal teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Exceptions are Matthew 15:6 and Mark 7:13, where the phrase refers to statements in the Torah. (In Luke 3:2, it refers to John the Baptist.) The sa ...[text shortened]... idolatrous: that depends on how one means it... There is a definite danger there, however.

I believe, unapologeticaly, that the 66 books contained in the bible are the inspired words of God.
That may appear to be ignorant to many, but I don't care.
My faith is in the word of God and not the word of man.
I don't exspect anyone to take my word for it either.

Originally posted by josephw
I believe, unapologeticaly, that the 66 books contained in the bible are the inspired words of God.
That may appear to be ignorant to many, but I don't care.
My faith is in the word of God and not the word of man.
I don't exspect anyone to take my word for it either.

I didn’t accuse you of being ignorant—nor anything else, for that matter.

I am pointing out (1) that it’s difficult to derive sola scriptura solely from the “scriptura,” because there is little, if any, support for that in the texts themselves—which raises the question of on what basis one makes that decision, or arrives at that belief; and (2) the danger of any hint of idolizing the logos of God by turning it into a collection of writings. One of the definitions of idolatry might be putting one’s faith (in the religious sense of that word) in anything that is not itself the living God.

There is the further question of the “gifts of the spirit,” and whether they continue (and on what basis one would assert that they do not); which was the subject of a detailed debate between KellyJay and xpoferens some time back.

Now, if one simply says something like, “I arrive at my understanding of God by studying the biblical texts, and [as you noted] observing nature/creation”—then I have nothing further to say strictly on that account (though we might argue about textual interpretations, etc.).

EDIT: It struck me that it is only fair that I say that I take the words of the biblical texts as being words of men, whether inspired or not.

Originally posted by vistesd
I didn’t accuse you of being ignorant—nor anything else, for that matter.

I am pointing out (1) that it’s difficult to derive sola scriptura solely from the “scriptura,” because there is little, if any, support for that in the texts themselves—which raises the question of on what basis one makes that decision, or arrives at that belief; and (2) t ...[text shortened]... her to say strictly on that account (though we might argue about textual interpretations, etc.).

I did not take it that you were accusing me of being ignorant or anything else, and I apologize if I sounded like I thought you were. I'm just speaking from my heart to the issue.

The true christain is one that has placed his trust in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross on his(the believers) behalf for the remission of sin. Consiquently the believer is then indwelt with the Spirit of God and regenerated spiritually. Then the believer begins to grow inwardly, spiritually, and in time understands and has dissernment concerning spiritual truth. It's hard work, and takes years to come to maturity. I am far from there. But I have complete faith in the written word of God, and am fully persuaded that the bible is just that, the word of God.

Now I hear what you are saying and I am aware of the objections to my way of thinking. And I have to confess that I can't argue with you on your terms because of my ignorants.

Another thing that resticts me is the time needed to persue this debate. I will post this now and may not be able to get back here untill tomorrow. Then it seems that the continuity is interupted.

But your first point about sola sciptura, and there being little if any support, is a matter I would like to discuss further if you're willing to.

What do you mean by "little support"?
I'm at a conference this weekend and will check back as frequently as I can.

Originally posted by vistesd
I didn’t accuse you of being ignorant—nor anything else, for that matter.

I am pointing out (1) that it’s difficult to derive sola scriptura solely from the “scriptura,” because there is little, if any, support for that in the texts themselves—which raises the question of on what basis one makes that decision, or arrives at that belief; and (2) t ...[text shortened]... say that I take the words of the biblical texts as being words of men, whether inspired or not.

I hear your objection concerning "idolizing" the word of God. However, it is not the Christian who does so by himself, rather, it is the very word of God as seen in John 1:1 when it says, "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word WAS God." It then goes on to say that Christ is God's word incarnate.

So by this definition of God, His Word and he are one and the same. Also, when Christ was asked by his disciples to show them the Father he said to them that if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. In other words, he was God's word incarnate and he and his word are one and the same.

Also, you say that you take the words in the Bible as the words of men. Granted, men wrote the words for us to read, however, it remains questionable as to whether they were dictating such words from God himself or if they were making them up altogether.

Originally posted by josephw
Other than what we see in creation, no.
God has said all he is going to say in his word the bible.
There is no new revelation of his will being given to man. We now have all we need to know concerning his will for man contained in scripture.
Any doubt of this will only lead to error.

I reject that!
God leads guides and teaches us today, difficult to do without being
able to be active in one's life. What life there is in God is real it will
not disagree with truth given in scripture already, but God is not a
mute, nor is God deaf, though many would like Him to be.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
I hear your objection concerning "idolizing" the word of God. However, it is not the Christian who does so by himself, rather, it is the very word of God as seen in John 1:1 when it says, "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word WAS God." It then goes on to say that Christ is God's word incarnate.

So by this definition of God, ...[text shortened]... they were dictating such words from God himself or if they were making them up altogether.

I think his post a little further up the page speaks to what you say here. It was helpful for me to read it as well. When John 1:1 was written there was no Bible as we know it.

I would ask you to perhaps think about that passage and ask some questions as a spiritual exercise.

What is John talking about when he says "word?"

If the "Word" were not there, what would God use?

What kinds of words do I hear from God that are not part of "the Word?"

Originally posted by kirksey957

Plus , I laughed my ass off.

Reverend, do they do savings like that in your church, with the tongues and microphones and everything?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I reject that!
God leads guides and teaches us today, difficult to do without being
able to be active in one's life. What life there is in God is real it will
not disagree with truth given in scripture already, but God is not a
mute, nor is God deaf, though many would like Him to be.
Kelly

I said God speaks to us through his word. I don't believe God is giving more revelation as the canon of scripture is closed.

Originally posted by whodey
I hear your objection concerning "idolizing" the word of God. However, it is not the Christian who does so by himself, rather, it is the very word of God as seen in John 1:1 when it says, "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word WAS God." It then goes on to say that Christ is God's word incarnate.

So by this definition of God, ...[text shortened]... they were dictating such words from God himself or if they were making them up altogether.

From my first post (as Kirksey referenced)—

Further, and theologically more important, logos does not simply mean “word” (whether written or spoken), but is a much broader term that can mean pattern, principle, reason, thought, reckoning, meaning... In Chinese bibles, it is translated as Tao: the Way, the way things are manifest. The Greek word that strictly means word, or speech, or saying, is rema.

In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, logos refers to an aspect of God—perhaps wisdom (e.g., Proverbs 3:19) or the Christ (ho Christos) as logos incarnate or manifest in human form (without pursuing the theology here)—not scripture.

_________________________________

My Greek dictionary has 50+ definitions for logos in addition to “word.” In the first chapter of the Gospel of John (probably the most theological of the gospels), logos refers to the “aspect” of God that becomes flesh. It is the “Tao” of God, or the “suchness” of God, that becomes incarnate as ho Christos, the Christ, in Jesus. In this reference, logos is neither spoken nor written “word.” I think it is really untranslatable into a single-word English equivalent here, which is why I keep using the original word.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Reverend, do they do savings like that in your church, with the tongues and microphones and everything?

Naw! I couldn't take it except for its entertainment value. I went to a black church once, but not quite that bad, but what impressed me is that you can act certifiably crazy in these churches and nobody really cares. You can run around and scream and yell at the preacher, fall over on the floor and nobody gives a damn.

I took a group of Sudanese young men there once and these kids had survived all kinds of stuff. Parents getting murdered. Seeing friends eaten by alligators and lions. People starving to death. One of them was set on fire. I've never heard of such trauma. But I tell you the truth, when these people got filled with the spirit it scared them worse than anything. They wouldn't go back. I had to take them to lunch at Hooters just to get them to calm down.

I would really like to take Ivanhoe to one of these places so he could experience American religion, or at least one expression of it.

Originally posted by vistesd
From my first post (as Kirksey referenced)—

[b]Further, and theologically more important, logos does not simply mean “word” (whether written or spoken), but is a much broader term that can mean pattern, principle, reason, thought, reckoning, meaning... In Chinese bibles, it is translated as Tao: the Way, the way things are manifest. The Greek word tha ...[text shortened]... latable into a single-word English equivalent here, which is why I keep using the original word.[/b]

Thanks for the response. In all honesty it does not really suprise me that the word "logos" has so many various meanings. After all, if God were to be equated with its meaning, I would not expect a one word simplistic meaning. However, I am not sure how this changes what scripture says in regards to it being God's word. Do keep in mind that Christ went around quoting scriputures from the Old Testament verbatum. He did not ever seem to take liberties with the words of those scriptures.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks for the response. In all honesty it does not really suprise me that the word "logos" has so many various meanings. After all, if God were to be equated with its meaning, I would not expect a one word simplistic meaning. However, I am not sure how this changes what scripture says in regards to it being God's word. Do keep in mind that Christ went ar ...[text shortened]... stament verbatum. He did not ever seem to take liberties with the words of those scriptures.

But he did take liberties with the teachings on divorce and adultery did he not?