The Bible is not the Word

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No one. You said the bible is not the word of God.

yes, i know. well, i didn't know, then, i was just pretty sure. but now i know, now. Have you answered that post? Should i save you some time? Go to Deuteronomy, that Book that got lost in the Temple, right under the altar. 30:8...i think (oops; i meant DOTDOTDOT. SEE THE PROBLEM oops with reading from a Book? it's right there, in the DOTDOTDOT). ha, i'm rambling now, very tired, that doesn't even make any sense. You should prolly ignore...well, i don't know. But i know the other part, Mike Blume. The Word is what made...caused...manifested the Book, go look. Cart before horse, of course. The Book is not the Word. Read it backwards, if it helps. tHE wORD GOT PUT INTO LANGUAGE, dang it, and there is a...different way to read or hear words, isn't there. the Word is not like that. <edit>So, i went and searched "lost book" and i don't see it, but something about a lost Book, lost by some guys in Levi's, whose whole job was to keep the Books? something something torn clothes, ya that's all i got bye

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter wrote that the scriptures are no private interpretation of man, but prophets and writers wrote as they were moved on by the Holy Ghost. That makes it the word of God.

Drop mic...

you just proved my point, Mike. Bob would have done just as well<edit>once he got the Word, because no person wrote the Book. Drop that Mic, bro.

<edit> ok, dotdotdot meaning "continued," sorry. got a half hour's sleep, i'm a little better now. Didn't even realize it was this thread lol. Sorry i can't help much on the lost Book, thing, i'm light on the OT. something about torn Levi's? lol, right man, how can Levi, that's it, duh, lose a Book? He's like 1000 guys right, whose whole job is to...memorize the dang Book, Mike. Didn't they basically sit around and knosh that stuff all day long? 100 at a time? old ones dying, new ones coming? k, i gotta get off this pc; but once you've tasted the old wine, you'll see It's better ok.
Good night.

[mfblume]

The words in the book are the word of God. That means the book is the word of God.

You guys overthink things and miss the forest for the trees.

If a book contains someone's word and nothing but that one's word, the book is that one's word.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The words in the book are the word of God. That means the book is the word of God.

Yet you have spent two or three days, looking for the verse that would tell you that, and you cannot find it, because it is not there. You are just in f...you just, hhhh, cling to the Book, because that is your root, and you don't want that to all be in vain; admit to your fear there, there is no shame in that, so that you can be free to hear the Word. It was not in vain, and you will want the Book more than ever, if you can but see that little children still have the Word, because they do not have the Book. Because they are still rooted in Word. Man, i wish i could do better there, but that is all Gospel, ok.

Originally Posted by mfblume

If a book contains someone's word and nothing but that one's word, the book is that one's word.

But the Book manifested from the Word, so that you as an adult might find the Word, which is not in the Book. Just like the Gospel is not, which is why we have endless threads about defining the Gospel, which after all is just the Word made manifest too.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Yet you have spent two or three days, looking for the verse that would tell you that, and you cannot find it, because it is not there.

That's like me writing a book and you asking me where in the book did I say these are my word.

lol

My signature tells it's my word.

The bible gives a signature that shows it is God's word. I already quoted the verses. The men who wrote wrote as they were moved on by the Holy Ghost. They're not their words They're God's words.

You are just in f...you just, hhhh, cling to the Book, because that is your root,

Nope. You miss the forest for the trees. You are overthinking things.'

and you don't want that to all be in vain; admit to your fear there, there is no shame in that, so that you can be free to hear the Word. It was not in vain, and you will want the Book more than ever, if you can but see that little children still have the Word, because they do not have the Book. Because they are still rooted in Word. Man, i wish i could do better there, but that is all Gospel, ok.

A person cannot believe unless they have a preacher. No one could come up with the truth of the cross without having heard someone preach it to them. So, the only way you can have the word without the book is to have someone tell you what the book says. Again, the word is what the book is, and that makes the book synonymous. That does not mean the ink on paper in leather or cardboard is something you can put under your pillow so God can miraculously bless you while you sleep. THAT is idolatry. When I say BOOK, I mean the TRUTH WRITTEN IN IT. Not the ink, paper and cover material.

I think our terms are fat too diverse from one another, like "catholic." I hope we mean the same thing despite difference of our terms, but I'm the only one pointing out the diversity of the meaning we use behind our terms.

But the Book manifested from the Word, so that you as an adult might find the Word, which is not in the Book. Just like the Gospel is not, which is why we have endless threads about defining the Gospel, which after all is just the Word made manifest too.

It's not ADULT the way you use the term. Again it's like legalism and law in your use. It's not what the bible meant. You're borrowing terms from the bible and throwing your own slant on them and not what God meant when He used those terms. That doesn't' mean your concept is wrong. It just means you cannot convey it to those who use the terms the way God meant them to be used. I hope that's the issue. I think for the most part it is, but you won't discuss together things with that in mind.

[shazeep]

the first part is not true, because you have a search engine for the Bible, and not for your book. I cannot do this anymore today. sorry. maybe tonight i will come address your contention at the bottom. yes. a couple hours ok, ty. if someone else doesn't first. smaller bites now, ok?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by YounginHope

In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God?

Originally Posted by mfblume

The bible is one form of the word.

Wadr, It is not.

Originally Posted by mfblume

There's written word.

That is not Word, and you cannot support either of these statements with the Book

Originally Posted by mfblume

Inspired on the spot word.

Now that is Word, and that is the only Word, and there is no other Word.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If I spoke a word today, and then some more words ten months from now and these new words written in a book, the first instance was not the book. But both instances were my word.

This is great as far as it goes, but this is likely inaccurate because that is not how the Book was constructed, "In principle..." If you spoke some words today, they would manifest in that day, ie "Go, Come, Do." The words you speak ten months from now, are Word, and then when that Word manifests a Book, something is lost, when you do it, that is not lost when Word manifests.

This is a bit difficult to see, so we may have to kick this around a little, but the analogy that comes to me at the moment is that your words would then be recorded on paper, and there would be no ambiguity in them, generally speaking; no intentional ambiguity, right. "It's like this, and then here, and i did, and i said." Like that. Any ambiguity would be unintentional, and would serve to detract from this book, correct?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Wadr, It is not.
That is not Word, and you cannot support either of these statements with the Book

SUre I can. Holy men of God spake as they were moved on by the Holy Ghost.

I already quoted where that is.

Now that is Word, and that is the only Word, and there is no other Word.

It's one of the forms of the Word amongst the others.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

This is great as far as it goes, but this is likely inaccurate because that is not how the Book was constructed, "In principle..." If you spoke some words today, they would manifest in that day, ie "Go, Come, Do." The words you speak ten months from now, are Word, and then when that Word manifests a Book, something is lost, when you do it, that is not lost when Word manifests.

This is a bit difficult to see, so we may have to kick this around a little, but the analogy that comes to me at the moment is that your words would then be recorded on paper, and there would be no ambiguity in them, generally speaking; no intentional ambiguity, right. "It's like this, and then here, and i did, and i said." Like that. Any ambiguity would be unintentional, and would serve to detract from this book, correct?

Holy men of God wrote and spoke as they were moved on by the Spirit. The bible is the word.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The bible is one form of the word. There's written word. Inspired on the spot word. Several forms that All speak the same overall message.

There is Word, and there are letters in the Book that make words, and they both declare the overall Message, yes, but the Bible is written to deceive, on purpose, so that the perishing may have a way to get there, too, if they cannot hear the Word.