• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What's really "God's Word" according to history...

The word Bible comes from the Greek word "biblion", which means "scroll" or "book" and Latin word "biblia", which also means "book" or "collection of books". So why do all Christians call it the "Word of God"? But there is a form of writing called "Medu Neter", or hieroglyphs (oldest known form of writing), that literally means "tongues of God" or "God's words". How did we get so confused? Why didn't the Bible mention God's other words that predated Christianity?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The irony is that "the Word of God" not only doesn't show up in any of the texts, but that even the Christian texts that refer to scripture being inspired actually are in reference to the Tanach. Early church leaders were often critical of the texts that were eventually canonized as being part of the "N.T." either because of a question of authorship and/or some incompleteness.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Of course, given that Christians include Jewish scripture among their canon, they do include things that predate Christianity.

Peter

The irony is that there was a debate in the early church as to whether to actually include the Tanakh in the Christian canon. However, since there are so many references in that canon to what's found in the Tanakh, it appears they didn't have much of a choice. What's also interesting, imo, is that Aquinas actually felt that the Tanakh shouldn't be taken too literally, and that it's only important use was to prefigure Jesus.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
The irony is that "the Word of God" not only doesn't show up in any of the texts....

Actually that is not quite accurate, although I do not recall, off hand, any reference within the canon that calls the entire corpus the "word of G-d."

Traditionally Judaism has viewed scripture as containing G-d's words. The traditional belief is in Torah m'Sinai, that the Torah was dictated to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And this belief is, perhaps most notably, incorporated within the 13 principles set forth by Maimonides, although, of course, it is so stated at the very beginning of Avot, the commonly called Ethics of the Fathers.

While the phrase "word of G-d" is not used, in Nehemiah, the first verse refers to Sefer torat Moshe asher tzivah Adonai et Yisrael, the scroll of the law of Moses that Adonai commanded to Israel.

And within the prophetic books, the utterances of the prophets are described as d'var Adonai, the word of Adonai. (Adonai here substituting for the tetragrammaton.)

Yeah, I know, technically d'var Adonai is not "word of G-d," but considering it uses the name of G-d I'd call it a "hit" .

Peter
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Actually that is not quite accurate, although I do not recall, off hand, any reference within the canon that calls the entire corpus the "word of G-d."

Traditionally Judaism has viewed scripture as containing G-d's words. The traditional belief is in Torah m'Sinai, that the Torah was dictated to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And this belief is, perhaps most notably, incorporated within the 13 principles set forth by Maimonides, although, of course, it is so stated at the very beginning of Avot, the commonly called Ethics of the Fathers.

While the phrase "word of G-d" is not used, in Nehemiah, the first verse refers to Sefer torat Moshe asher tzivah Adonai et Yisrael, the scroll of the law of Moses that Adonai commanded to Israel.

And within the prophetic books, the utterances of the prophets are described as d'var Adonai, the word of Adonai. (Adonai here substituting for the tetragrammaton.)

Yeah, I know, technically d'var Adonai is not "word of G-d," but considering it uses the name of G-d I'd call it a "hit" .

Peter

Thanks for the correction on this, but let me ask a question back. I cannot remember where I read it but the historian contends that at the end of the 1st Temple period, the texts were more viewed as history than scripture, and that it was probably during the Babylonian exile, or maybe the early 2nd Temple period, whereas it began to be more viewed as inspired "scripture" from God.

To me, I see the scriptures (Tanakh in this case) as more being about God and our relationship versus being somehow taken out of God's "mouth", plus many in both the Christian and our own faith tend to almost deify the scriptures, which strikes me as being dangerously close to idolatry.

But what do you expect from this heretic? :shrug:
 
Of course, given that Christians include Jewish scripture among their canon, they do include things that predate Christianity.

Peter

And in those Jewish texts that predated Christianity, was there anything written that described the scriptures written to be "God's Word"? My understanding is that the idea of "God's Word" came from the Egyptians since that's what their written language was called. But no mention of this in the canonized Bible about that.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
Thanks for the correction on this, but let me ask a question back. I cannot remember where I read it but the historian contends that at the end of the 1st Temple period, the texts were more viewed as history than scripture, and that it was probably during the Babylonian exile, or maybe the early 2nd Temple period, whereas it began to be more viewed as inspired "scripture" from God.

To me, I see the scriptures (Tanakh in this case) as more being about God and our relationship versus being somehow taken out of God's "mouth", plus many in both the Christian and our own faith tend to almost deify the scriptures, which strikes me as being dangerously close to idolatry.

But what do you expect from this heretic? :shrug:

My friend, you know me well enough by now, I trust, to know that I am not advocating Torah m'Sinai, just pointing to the tradition. In that regard, although the entire Tanakh is considered holy, the Torah is considered the most sacred,followed by Neviim followed by Ketuvim because the tradition sees the Torah as words by G-d, Neviim as words from G-d, and Ketuvim as words about G-d.

I would be leery in positing an opinion about how what came to be scripture was seen at the end of the 1st Temple period. There are too many unknowns, to my way of thinking, as to in what form the components existed at that time and there is, of course, the nature of Israelite religion at that time which was focused on the Temple cult. There are scholarly disagreements as to when the components were written and, for example, in regard to what are referred to as J and E, whether J and E were, prior to the final editing of the Torah, melded together as a single document JE. As you may know Richard Friedman compiled, in The Hidden Book in the Bible, his reconstruction of J. As regard to E, there is some disagreement as to whether E ever existed as a total separate entity or was just separate kinds of units.

Peter
 
Last edited:

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
And in those Jewish texts that predated Christianity, was there anything written that described the scriptures written to be "God's Word"? My understanding is that the idea of "God's Word" came from the Egyptians since that's what their written language was called. But no mention of this in the canonized Bible about that.

My understanding is that the ancient Egyptians called their written language "the words of god" because they believed that the god Thoth invented written language. That is a whole different meaning of the term from the usage we are talking about here.

Peter
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
My friend, you know me well enough by now, I trust, to know that I am not advocating Torah m'Sinai, just pointing to the tradition. In that regard, although the entire Tanakh is considered holy, the Torah is considered the most sacred,followed by Neviim followed by Ketuvim because the tradition sees the Torah as words by G-d, Neviim as words from G-d, and Ketuvim as words about G-d.

I would be leery in positing an opinion about how what came to be scripture was seen at the end of the 1st Temple period. There are too many unknowns, to my way of thinking, as to in what form the components existed at that time and there is, of course, the nature of Israelite religion at that time which was focused on the Temple cult. There are scholarly disagreements as to when the components were written and, for example, in regard to what are referred to as J and E, whether J and E were, prior to the final editing of the Torah, melded together as a single document JE. As you may know Richard Friedman compiled, in The Hidden Book in the Bible, his reconstruction of J. As regard to E, there is some disagreement as to whether E ever existed as a total separate entity or was just separate kinds of units.

Peter

Well said, imo, and I certainly don't have any problem with the above-- but then what do I know??? Reminds me of a quote attributed to Confucius: the more you know, the more you know you really don't know.

Your friend,
Vern
 

jtartar

Well-Known Member
The word Bible comes from the Greek word "biblion", which means "scroll" or "book" and Latin word "biblia", which also means "book" or "collection of books". So why do all Christians call it the "Word of God"? But there is a form of writing called "Medu Neter", or hieroglyphs (oldest known form of writing), that literally means "tongues of God" or "God's words". How did we get so confused? Why didn't the Bible mention God's other words that predated Christianity?

#H.E.B.Knowledge,
The Bible itself tells us that the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD, 1Pet 1:25, Ps 12:6,7, Prov 30:5,6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18,19.
Jesus is called THE WORD, John 1:1,14, Rev 19:13. This is evidently a title, Jesus being the one who would relate God's will to His creation.
The Bible tells us that God made everything THROUGH Jesus, and FOR Jesus, John 1:3, 1Cor 8:6, Col 1:16.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
#H.E.B.Knowledge,
The Bible itself tells us that the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD, 1Pet 1:25, Ps 12:6,7, Prov 30:5,6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18,19.

It does no such thing. In fact the Bible clearly indicates the Word of God is NOT equivalent to the Bible.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
#H.E.B.Knowledge,
The Bible itself tells us that the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD, 1Pet 1:25, Ps 12:6,7, Prov 30:5,6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18,19.
Jesus is called THE WORD, John 1:1,14, Rev 19:13. This is evidently a title, Jesus being the one who would relate God's will to His creation.
The Bible tells us that God made everything THROUGH Jesus, and FOR Jesus, John 1:3, 1Cor 8:6, Col 1:16.

I am not, of course, going to comment about Christian scripture, but your cites to Proverbs, Psalms, and Deuteronomy do not comport with your position.

Peter
 

greentwiga

Active Member
This is such a confusing first post. A couple of comments. The Greek word for word is Lex or Lexus from which we get lexicon. The Greek word used is logos from which we get logic. It gives translators fits so is usually translated word. In some ways, the use of wisdom in the start of proverbs is closer to the idea of logos.

Egyptian Hieroglyphics was the second writing system after cuneiform. The Hykos adapted a special used of hieroglyphics to make their written language, Proto-Sinaitic. From them, it went to the city of Byblos, who gave their name to writing bound in book form, called Byblos or Bibles. It spread from them to a huge variety of writing systems, including Arabic, Hebrew and Greek. Moses, though wrote in scrolls. Jesus read from scrolls, and the Jews today use scrolls in their synagogues. It doesn't matter the form of the book. It only matters that it is scripture.

The Israelites had good standards as to what they allowed as scriptures. Among other standards, it had to only honor YHWH. Any writings that honored another God were rejected. Other writings that honored other Gods, even if they used terms like the "word of God" were rejected.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Of course, given that Christians include Jewish scripture among their canon, they do include things that predate Christianity.

Peter

Given that all Jewish deities exited before Judaism in the Canaanite pantheon, Jews have included scripture that predates Judaism.
 
Top