1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God--the word which is now at work in you who believe.
is it the word of men coming from vpw's written works?
t took me time to locate WHICH words from VPW were the most trustworthy: from words spoken privately, to words spoken on tape, to "it is written."
You see the problem here? It's YOU deciding which of Saint Vic's words are trustworthy. Just as it's YOU deciding which of the collaterals we should believe.
That's like me telling you which passages in The Secret you should follow.
Truth cannot be found. It is not to be attained. Truth is nothing to be possessed.
But all the priests, gurus and teachers will happily take your money, honor and devotion in exchange for a comfortable package of knowledge you can hold in your brain or in their books. Then you say, "I've got it! I found it!"
Truth cannot be held. The one claiming to HAVE the Truth is surely the one who does not.
Truth is to be seen.
It can be seen by anyone with eyes to see.
Edited by Nathan_Jr Truth is not an artifact to be found.
In Avalos' book, The End of Biblical Studies, he cites a past president of the Society for Biblical Literature, Morton S Enslin, who "sounded a near death-knell on December 27, 1945. In a presidential address titled "The Future of Biblical Studies," he posed the question "Is there a Future of Biblical Studies?" His initial answer is "Of course there is." But the rest of the speech is not so optimistic, and near the end he proclaims that "we are destroying our future through showing ourselves unworthy of having one." pg 308.
Truth cannot be found. It is not to be attained. Truth is nothing to be possessed.
But all the priests, gurus and teachers will happily take your money, honor and devotion in exchange for a comfortable package of knowledge you can hold in your brain or in their books. Then you say, "I've got it! I found it!"
Truth cannot be held. The one claiming to HAVE the Truth is surely the one who does not.
Truth is to be seen.
It can be seen by anyone with eyes to see.
Hi, If you can see truth, then have you found it? And what do you do with truth once you see it if you can't hold onto it? Does the truth you see lead you anywhere - are you able to follow it and apply it to your life? Is truth personal to how one sees/perceives it and therefore cannot be said to be THE truth?
Hi, If you can see truth, then have you found it? And what do you do with truth once you see it if you can't hold onto it? Does the truth you see lead you anywhere - are you able to follow it and apply it to your life? Is truth personal to how one sees/perceives it and therefore cannot be said to be THE truth?
People used to tell me that the birth of my son would change my life. However they described it, however they explained it, that was not it. Their words were insufficient.
You are a mother. You might know what I'm talking about. It is something that cannot be explained or contained conceptually. It is indescribable, is it not?
We are so eager to have someone else provide answers. We want someone else to see it for us. We want someone else to tell us what to do.
Or, for something completely different along these lines, there's a very compelling argument for doing away with bible study altogether in a "shocking" book called The End of Biblical Studies (gasp!) by Hector Avalos, PhD. Prometheus Books. 2007.
Just sayin … there is an alternative viewpoint for those interested in questioning the value of continuing to hammer away at biblical texts in hopes of recreating "the original." Even if we did reach that goal, what would we have? A text that still contains contradictions (four different viewpoints in the 4 gospels), violence against "unbelievers," in the Hebrew Bible, condemnation of homosexuals, subjugation of women, etc.
The only result of continued attempts to “rightly divide the word of truth,” is more divisions, and the establishment of additional religions. When Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis it did nothing more than setup a new religion. The Roman Catholic church did not alter their beliefs as a result of Luther’s declarations. The only outcome was the beginning of the Luthern church, and now there are 60 variations of the Luthern religion.
I guess attempts to “rightly dividing the word of truth,” is not possible, because it only leads to more division?
Look at TWI. How many new religions have begun by those who took PFAL, and who have done additional research of the the word, and have determined their research is superior to VPW’s? They now have a fellowship in their home which only increases the number of religions in the world.
Just sayin … let's take a look at bibliolatry and get honest about that. Perhaps this is a topic for the Doctrinal thread. Sigh …
Just sayin … let's take a look at bibliolatry and get honest about that. Perhaps this is a topic for the Doctrinal thread.
I mentioned recently I believe this topic is completely germane to the About the Way forum because Victor Wierwille built his entire enterprise on and around bibliolatry.
It's YOU [Mike] deciding which of Saint Vic's words are trustworthy. Just as it's YOU deciding which of the collaterals we should believe.
My view is Mike is completely free to have been a seeker who just decided. However, that's not what Mike's role as an activist for promoting all things Wierwille, PFLAP, and the associated written collateral materials... ARGUING (incredibly poorly) for that position.
Last night, I tried to pin him down and get him to justify his position. He replied with what I read as extreme frustration, expressed with emotionally immature and accusatory language. I realized at that time the only way for me to reasonably respond to him when he does that is with compassion.
I maintain that his advocacy for all things twi is worthy of reasonable and aggressive pushback. When he seems to go off the rails, that signals to me he needs to be responded to with compassion.
My view is Mike is completely free to have been a seeker who just decided. However, that's not what Mike's role as an activist for promoting all things Wierwille, PFLAP, and the associated written collateral materials... ARGUING (incredibly poorly) for that position.
Last night, I tried to pin him down and get him to justify his position. He replied with what I read as extreme frustration, expressed with emotionally immature and accusatory language. I realized at that time the only way for me to reasonably respond to him when he does that is with compassion.
I maintain that his advocacy for all things twi is worthy of reasonable and aggressive pushback. When he seems to go off the rails, that signals to me he needs to be responded to with compassion.
Congratulations! It took you several decades to realize Mike’s responses are not on the up and up. Why so long?
And not that discussion with Mike or the subjects we engage in on GSC are science, but this brief TED talk seems relevant. Then again, he seems to approach them in a pseudo-scientific way sometimes.
My view is Mike is completely free to have been a seeker who just decided. However, that's not what Mike's role as an activist for promoting all things Wierwille, PFLAP, and the associated written collateral materials... ARGUING (incredibly poorly) for that position.
Last night, I tried to pin him down and get him to justify his position. He replied with what I read as extreme frustration, expressed with emotionally immature and accusatory language. I realized at that time the only way for me to reasonably respond to him when he does that is with compassion.
I maintain that his advocacy for all things twi is worthy of reasonable and aggressive pushback. When he seems to go off the rails, that signals to me he needs to be responded to with compassion.
Penworks suggested this would be a fitting topic for the Doctrinal forum. While I can heartily agree with such a sentiment. I believe this is very fitting and appropriate in About the Way because Victor Wierwille's entire enterprise was built around bibliolatry.
Bibliolatry (from the Greek βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix -λατρία -latria, "worship")[1][2] is the worship of a book, idolatrous homage to a book, or the deifying of a book.[3][4][5] It is a form of idolatry.[4] The sacred texts of some religions disallow icon worship, but over time the texts themselves are treated as sacred the way idols are, and believers may end up effectively worshipping the book.[6] Bibliolatry extends claims of inerrancy—hence perfection—to the texts, precluding theological innovation, evolving development, or progress.[6][7] Bibliolatry can lead to revivalism, disallows re-probation, and can lead to persecution of unpopular doctrines.[7]
Historically, Christianity has never endorsed worship of the Bible, reserving worship for God. Some Christians believe that biblical authority derives from God as the inspiration of the text, not from the text itself.[8] The term "bibliolatry" does not refer to a recognized belief, but theological discussion may use the word pejoratively to label the perceived practices of opponents.[9] Opponents may apply the term "bibliolatry" to groups such as Protestants of a fundamentalist and evangelical background, such as the King James Only movement, who espouse biblical inerrancy and a sola scriptura approach (scripture as the only divine authority).[10]
****
Has anyone here ever heard or read the phrase "The Word of God is the Will of God?"
"Bibliolatry...is the worship of a book, idolatrous homage to a book, or the deifying of a book...It is a form of idolatry." I agree this fits in with what I understand the "About the Way" forum was to be about - the freedom to look at the other side of what twi taught without fear of having threats, condemnation and insults thrown at you. Many, many times, I have read people say that the reason for their posts was to help those thinking of leaving twi or those who have left and are struggling mentally, emotionally, spiritually to find strength and healing.
So, I personally feel that discussing the idea that the Bible is no longer relevant or no longer a source for truth is 1) not going to help these people and 2) have nothing to do about the way because they never taught this. There is not the other side of one of their coins (beliefs).
If I had read some of these posts when I came to GSC 8 months ago, I would have turned away for the site immediately. Instead, I read a discussion about the Absent Christ and it changed my spiritual life from being one step away from the grave to becoming alive and meaningful for the first time ever - even after being in twi for 12 years.
Discussing the importance of critical thinking is helpful because it was done away with in the way. But in my opinion, if one's critical thinking leads them to no longer believe in God or in His Word at all, then I think a thread should be started to discuss this in a different forum.
In this way, I agree with what Penworks suggested.
But in my opinion, if one's critical thinking leads them to no longer believe in God or in His Word at all, then I think a thread should be started to discuss this in a different forum
I'm hesitant to accuse someone of worshipping a book and especially the Bible. As old Craig used to say "it depends on the mindset of the person making the decision" and unless God tells you what's inside someone's heart and mindset, how can someone know for sure? Then there's the declared truth that "God is the Word" and that includes the written Word (given by the Holy Spirit). Written words represent thoughts, so one may surmise that the written Word HELPS one worship the true God rather than hinder; and is a direct aid to worshipping God. We all know the verses, including the one from David "thou has magnified thy Word above all thy name."
Well, I still maintain Victor Wierwille's entire enterprise was based on and revolved around bibliolatry.
Nevertheless, on other things, I've held the same concern you raised and believe your concern is quite valid.
Perhaps I'll start a thread on the topic of bibliolatry in the linked forum.
I appreciate your assertiveness in raising the issue.
I wrote in my post that I agreed bibliolatry did fit in with the "About the Way" forum which is described as "discussion about The Way International and its leadership." I was thinking in the sense that vp taught the written word replaced the absent Christ. Bibliolatry is also about questioning the inerrancy, infallibility and supremacy of Scripture, something vp claimed God had chosen him to do by wanting him to research and teach the Word like it hadn't been taught since the first century. He also declared he had accomplished this. His declaration, however, has been proven to be wrong because of the inaccuracy of his teachings as revealed in this forum. In both cases, vp and twi were the focus of the discussions.
My point was referring to topics and posts which speak of no longer believing in God or in His Word at all. The forum below includes the topics of skepticism and questioning faith.
_________________
Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith
For me, I had mainly noticed only the first topic of this forum when reading its title. I was a bit surprised when I looked at it fully after waysider posted the link. I appreciate GSC for having these options available for they do serve a useful purpose for many people.
I was not familiar with the definition of nontheism so I looked it up and read the website below. It explains the difference between it and atheism.
I thought I'd add what the moderators posted about this forum.
"The Greasespot rules apply here just as they do on any other forum. They apply to everyone, regardless of forum "status" or authority. They apply FOR everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
This forum on Questioning Faith was started in order to isolate discussions on atheism from other discussions on doctrine. It was started specifically in response to complaints in the Actual Errors in Genesis thread. There was an ERRONEOUS belief that the doctrinal section is for believers only, and that people who are not believers are "wasting their time" posting in doctrinal. Let it be clear: anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) is free to post on any thread in doctrinal. Efforts to make posters feel unwelcome in the doctrinal section because of their beliefs will not be tolerated.
The same goes for Questioning Faith. ANYONE can post here, no matter what you believe.
But whether it's an atheist in the doctrinal section or a believer in Questioning Faith, it is expected that your contribution to the discussion will be On Topic."
If two people are discussing who is the best active player in Major League Baseball, you can't decide this is the right place to talk about whether the Red Sox blundered trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees. You don't get to declare the thread to be about baseball in general just because baseball is an element of the conversation.
If you are not interested in a conversation, you do not get to unilaterally change it. If you would like to start a related discussion, feel free to do so. That will keep the thread on topic while still allowing you to explore ideas inspired by but not directly related to the topic at hand.
Calling someone deceitful will not be tolerated.
Calling someone demonic will not be tolerated.
If you're going to call a statement untrue, be prepared to back it up. The issue is the statement, NOT the person making it.
Believers are more than welcome to challenge atheist ideas in Questioning Faith. Believers are welcome to start threads and initiate discussions. They are more than allowed to participate in discussions -- they are invited to do so.
The point is to have a discussion, not a monologue or an echo chamber.
Challenging someone's beliefs = fair game.
Mocking them or demonizing them for holding a belief = NOT fair game.
The Way promulgated doctrinal beliefs that lead us to have an inordinate reverence for the book, itself. Or, in some cases, a reverence of the collaterals, as well.
"The Bible is the revealed word of God.">>>> "It's The Word, The Word and nothing but the Word."
I mean, it's not hard to do the math.
David said "thou has magnified thy Word above all thy name."
1.) It was David, not God, who made the declaration.
2.) There was no "Bible" when he said it.
55 minutes ago, waysider said:
The Way promulgated doctrinal beliefs that lead us to have an inordinate reverence for the book, itself. Or, in some cases, a reverence of the collaterals, as well.
I agree. The concept that we have a Bible and that Bible contains all the holy books we ever need is blatant error. There are various and sundry canons all over the earth. There are books that have been excluded from the Biblical canon we use in America that are scripture. 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher come to mind immediately but there are others as well. So to say that our western Canon is the absolute Word of God is absolute error. I left a link for those who would like to read more on the Ethiopic Canon and Im leaving a list of books in their Bible...
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
I Samuel
II Samuel
I Kings
II Kings
I Chronicles
II Chronicles (incl. the Prayer of Manasseh)
Jubilees
Enoch
I Ezra[4]
II Ezra[4]
Ezra Sutuel[4]
Tobit
Judith
Esther
I Meqabyan
II Meqabyan
III Meqabyan (Similarly named, but not the same as the four Greek Books of the Maccabees. )
Job
Psalms
Messalë (Proverbs ch 1–24)
Tägsas (“Reproof”; Proverbs ch 25–31)
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Letter of Jeremiah
Baruch
4 Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Amos
Micah
Joel
Obadiah
Jonah
Nahum (or Nahium)
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Sirach
Josippon
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
I Thessalonians
II Thessalonians
I Timothy
II Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
I Peter
II Peter
I John
II John
III John
James
Jude
Revelation
Sinodos
Ser`atä Seyon (30 canons)
Te’ezaz (71 canons)
Gessew (56 canons)
Abtelis (81 canons)
I-II Covenant
Ethiopic Clement[5]
Ethiopic Didascalia[5]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
52
50
37
Popular Days
Jul 31
87
Jul 27
47
Aug 4
36
Aug 5
34
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 61 posts
Mike 52 posts
OldSkool 50 posts
Nathan_Jr 37 posts
Popular Days
Jul 31 2023
87 posts
Jul 27 2023
47 posts
Aug 4 2023
36 posts
Aug 5 2023
34 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Or, for something completely different along these lines, there's a very compelling argument for doing away with bible study altogether in a "shocking" book called The End of Biblical Studies (gasp!)
waysider
The sound of irony is deafening.
OldSkool
I dont see jeering and chatter I saw you completely shut down because you were confronted with uncomfortable truths that you are smart enough to recognize but deluded enough to rationalize them away.
Posted Images
cman
is it the word of men coming from vpw's written works?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You see the problem here? It's YOU deciding which of Saint Vic's words are trustworthy. Just as it's YOU deciding which of the collaterals we should believe.
That's like me telling you which passages in The Secret you should follow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Truth cannot be found. It is not to be attained. Truth is nothing to be possessed.
But all the priests, gurus and teachers will happily take your money, honor and devotion in exchange for a comfortable package of knowledge you can hold in your brain or in their books. Then you say, "I've got it! I found it!"
Truth cannot be held. The one claiming to HAVE the Truth is surely the one who does not.
Truth is to be seen.
It can be seen by anyone with eyes to see.
Edited by Nathan_JrTruth is not an artifact to be found.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
In Avalos' book, The End of Biblical Studies, he cites a past president of the Society for Biblical Literature, Morton S Enslin, who "sounded a near death-knell on December 27, 1945. In a presidential address titled "The Future of Biblical Studies," he posed the question "Is there a Future of Biblical Studies?" His initial answer is "Of course there is." But the rest of the speech is not so optimistic, and near the end he proclaims that "we are destroying our future through showing ourselves unworthy of having one." pg 308.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Hi, If you can see truth, then have you found it? And what do you do with truth once you see it if you can't hold onto it? Does the truth you see lead you anywhere - are you able to follow it and apply it to your life? Is truth personal to how one sees/perceives it and therefore cannot be said to be THE truth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
People used to tell me that the birth of my son would change my life. However they described it, however they explained it, that was not it. Their words were insufficient.
You are a mother. You might know what I'm talking about. It is something that cannot be explained or contained conceptually. It is indescribable, is it not?
We are so eager to have someone else provide answers. We want someone else to see it for us. We want someone else to tell us what to do.
No one can see it for you.
Trust.
But don't trust me.
Edited by Nathan_JrTruth is not an artifact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I mentioned recently I believe this topic is completely germane to the About the Way forum because Victor Wierwille built his entire enterprise on and around bibliolatry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
My view is Mike is completely free to have been a seeker who just decided. However, that's not what Mike's role as an activist for promoting all things Wierwille, PFLAP, and the associated written collateral materials... ARGUING (incredibly poorly) for that position.
Last night, I tried to pin him down and get him to justify his position. He replied with what I read as extreme frustration, expressed with emotionally immature and accusatory language. I realized at that time the only way for me to reasonably respond to him when he does that is with compassion.
I maintain that his advocacy for all things twi is worthy of reasonable and aggressive pushback. When he seems to go off the rails, that signals to me he needs to be responded to with compassion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Congratulations! It took you several decades to realize Mike’s responses are not on the up and up. Why so long?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That wasn't the issue. I've known all along. The question, as I see it, is why it took so long to pin him down, rhetorically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And not that discussion with Mike or the subjects we engage in on GSC are science, but this brief TED talk seems relevant. Then again, he seems to approach them in a pseudo-scientific way sometimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Awesome perspective, thank you Sir!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
"Bibliolatry...is the worship of a book, idolatrous homage to a book, or the deifying of a book...It is a form of idolatry." I agree this fits in with what I understand the "About the Way" forum was to be about - the freedom to look at the other side of what twi taught without fear of having threats, condemnation and insults thrown at you. Many, many times, I have read people say that the reason for their posts was to help those thinking of leaving twi or those who have left and are struggling mentally, emotionally, spiritually to find strength and healing.
So, I personally feel that discussing the idea that the Bible is no longer relevant or no longer a source for truth is 1) not going to help these people and 2) have nothing to do about the way because they never taught this. There is not the other side of one of their coins (beliefs).
If I had read some of these posts when I came to GSC 8 months ago, I would have turned away for the site immediately. Instead, I read a discussion about the Absent Christ and it changed my spiritual life from being one step away from the grave to becoming alive and meaningful for the first time ever - even after being in twi for 12 years.
Discussing the importance of critical thinking is helpful because it was done away with in the way. But in my opinion, if one's critical thinking leads them to no longer believe in God or in His Word at all, then I think a thread should be started to discuss this in a different forum.
In this way, I agree with what Penworks suggested.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
HERE it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith
This is it! Thanks waysider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Well, I still maintain Victor Wierwille's entire enterprise was based on and revolved around bibliolatry.
Nevertheless, on other things, I've held the same concern you raised and believe your concern is quite valid.
Perhaps I'll start a thread on the topic of bibliolatry in the linked forum.
I appreciate your assertiveness in raising the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'm hesitant to accuse someone of worshipping a book and especially the Bible. As old Craig used to say "it depends on the mindset of the person making the decision" and unless God tells you what's inside someone's heart and mindset, how can someone know for sure? Then there's the declared truth that "God is the Word" and that includes the written Word (given by the Holy Spirit). Written words represent thoughts, so one may surmise that the written Word HELPS one worship the true God rather than hinder; and is a direct aid to worshipping God. We all know the verses, including the one from David "thou has magnified thy Word above all thy name."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What if we called it unreasonably excessive obsession? Would that make it more palatable?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I wrote in my post that I agreed bibliolatry did fit in with the "About the Way" forum which is described as "discussion about The Way International and its leadership." I was thinking in the sense that vp taught the written word replaced the absent Christ. Bibliolatry is also about questioning the inerrancy, infallibility and supremacy of Scripture, something vp claimed God had chosen him to do by wanting him to research and teach the Word like it hadn't been taught since the first century. He also declared he had accomplished this. His declaration, however, has been proven to be wrong because of the inaccuracy of his teachings as revealed in this forum. In both cases, vp and twi were the focus of the discussions.
My point was referring to topics and posts which speak of no longer believing in God or in His Word at all. The forum below includes the topics of skepticism and questioning faith.
_________________
Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith
For me, I had mainly noticed only the first topic of this forum when reading its title. I was a bit surprised when I looked at it fully after waysider posted the link. I appreciate GSC for having these options available for they do serve a useful purpose for many people.
I was not familiar with the definition of nontheism so I looked it up and read the website below. It explains the difference between it and atheism.
What is nontheism? What does it mean to be nontheistic? | GotQuestions.org
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith
I thought I'd add what the moderators posted about this forum.
"The Greasespot rules apply here just as they do on any other forum. They apply to everyone, regardless of forum "status" or authority. They apply FOR everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
This forum on Questioning Faith was started in order to isolate discussions on atheism from other discussions on doctrine. It was started specifically in response to complaints in the Actual Errors in Genesis thread. There was an ERRONEOUS belief that the doctrinal section is for believers only, and that people who are not believers are "wasting their time" posting in doctrinal. Let it be clear: anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) is free to post on any thread in doctrinal. Efforts to make posters feel unwelcome in the doctrinal section because of their beliefs will not be tolerated.
The same goes for Questioning Faith. ANYONE can post here, no matter what you believe.
But whether it's an atheist in the doctrinal section or a believer in Questioning Faith, it is expected that your contribution to the discussion will be On Topic."
If two people are discussing who is the best active player in Major League Baseball, you can't decide this is the right place to talk about whether the Red Sox blundered trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees. You don't get to declare the thread to be about baseball in general just because baseball is an element of the conversation.
If you are not interested in a conversation, you do not get to unilaterally change it. If you would like to start a related discussion, feel free to do so. That will keep the thread on topic while still allowing you to explore ideas inspired by but not directly related to the topic at hand.
Calling someone deceitful will not be tolerated.
Calling someone demonic will not be tolerated.
If you're going to call a statement untrue, be prepared to back it up. The issue is the statement, NOT the person making it.
Believers are more than welcome to challenge atheist ideas in Questioning Faith. Believers are welcome to start threads and initiate discussions. They are more than allowed to participate in discussions -- they are invited to do so.
The point is to have a discussion, not a monologue or an echo chamber.
Challenging someone's beliefs = fair game.
Mocking them or demonizing them for holding a belief = NOT fair game.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"The Bible is the revealed word of God.">>>> "It's The Word, The Word and nothing but the Word."
I mean, it's not hard to do the math.
David said "thou has magnified thy Word above all thy name."
1.) It was David, not God, who made the declaration.
2.) There was no "Bible" when he said it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Way promulgated doctrinal beliefs that lead us to have an inordinate reverence for the book, itself. Or, in some cases, a reverence of the collaterals, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I agree. The concept that we have a Bible and that Bible contains all the holy books we ever need is blatant error. There are various and sundry canons all over the earth. There are books that have been excluded from the Biblical canon we use in America that are scripture. 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher come to mind immediately but there are others as well. So to say that our western Canon is the absolute Word of God is absolute error. I left a link for those who would like to read more on the Ethiopic Canon and Im leaving a list of books in their Bible...
https://www.euclid.int/papers/Anke Wanger - Canon in the EOTC.pdf
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
I Samuel
II Samuel
I Kings
II Kings
I Chronicles
II Chronicles (incl. the Prayer of Manasseh)
Jubilees
Enoch
I Ezra[4]
II Ezra[4]
Ezra Sutuel[4]
Tobit
Judith
Esther
I Meqabyan
II Meqabyan
III Meqabyan (Similarly named, but not the same as the four Greek Books of the Maccabees. )
Job
Psalms
Messalë (Proverbs ch 1–24)
Tägsas (“Reproof”; Proverbs ch 25–31)
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Letter of Jeremiah
Baruch
4 Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Amos
Micah
Joel
Obadiah
Jonah
Nahum (or Nahium)
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Sirach
Josippon
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
I Thessalonians
II Thessalonians
I Timothy
II Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
I Peter
II Peter
I John
II John
III John
James
Jude
Revelation
Sinodos
Ser`atä Seyon (30 canons)
Te’ezaz (71 canons)
Gessew (56 canons)
Abtelis (81 canons)
I-II Covenant
Ethiopic Clement[5]
Ethiopic Didascalia[5]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.