Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
What is the difference between using the bible being an physical idol and using the physical bible as the word of god?
-
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!
The Idol and the Word of God
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
The difference is between "bibliolatry" and "bibliopaedia".
Bibliolatry is a construct of two Greek words: -λατρία -latria, "worship" [cf. Bibliolatry - Wikipedia].
Bibliopaedia [NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH "Bibliopedia", which is a name that refers to a computerized "provides a platform for organizing, visualizing, sharing, and searching archives without the need for scholars to become experts in metadata or data visualization. It transforms materials into visualized networks to provide new insights into their structure and context. Bibliopedia allows scholars to collaborate on the elaboration and improvement of these materials, is useful for active research, and serves as a gateway to long-term preservation and dissemination. Bibliopedia’s main technical innovation is the melding of the needs of researchers with those of librarians and technologists through open source software, standardized yet flexible metadata descriptions, and existing and emerging technologies that include Linked Open Data and data visualizations. Bibliopedia ensures that research and cultural heritage materials are available to the widest possible audiences, for long-term preservation, and for creative combinations with other resources. [cf. Bibliopedia]
Bibliopaedia may be my own personal construct, from two Greek words: βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix παιδεία, -paedia, meaning "education, rearing of a child".
Bibliolatry is a construct of two Greek words: -λατρία -latria, "worship" [cf. Bibliolatry - Wikipedia].
Bibliopaedia [NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH "Bibliopedia", which is a name that refers to a computerized "provides a platform for organizing, visualizing, sharing, and searching archives without the need for scholars to become experts in metadata or data visualization. It transforms materials into visualized networks to provide new insights into their structure and context. Bibliopedia allows scholars to collaborate on the elaboration and improvement of these materials, is useful for active research, and serves as a gateway to long-term preservation and dissemination. Bibliopedia’s main technical innovation is the melding of the needs of researchers with those of librarians and technologists through open source software, standardized yet flexible metadata descriptions, and existing and emerging technologies that include Linked Open Data and data visualizations. Bibliopedia ensures that research and cultural heritage materials are available to the widest possible audiences, for long-term preservation, and for creative combinations with other resources. [cf. Bibliopedia]
Bibliopaedia may be my own personal construct, from two Greek words: βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix παιδεία, -paedia, meaning "education, rearing of a child".
- Bibliolatry, IMO, is most common among Christians, with the other Abrahamic faith communities running close second runners-up. However, I think it's important to point out that that claim is based on my ignorance of all other communities whose organizational structure is founded on, rooted in, or based on a physical text (scripture).
- Bibliolatry typically assumes complete, or near-complete, scriptural literality and "inerrancy". Proponents of bibliolatry typically maintain a "stenographic revelation" view of their scripture, whereas proponents of bibliopaedia, within a given faith community typically maintain a "participatory revelation" view of their scripture. Proponents of bibliopedia outside of a given faith community are generally heathen and don't believe in revelations, stenographic or participatory.
Last edited:
I think there's a big difference. The Bible isn't enshrined nor are offerings made to it. It's not prayed to or thought of as a deity able to answer prayers or give blessings. I'm sure there are others I can't think of right now.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The difference is between "bibliolatry" and "bibliopaedia".
Bibliolatry is a construct of two Greek words: -λατρία -latria, "worship" [cf. Bibliolatry - Wikipedia].
Bibliopaedia [NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH "Bibliopedia", which is a name that refers to a computerized "provides a platform for organizing, visualizing, sharing, and searching archives without the need for scholars to become experts in metadata or data visualization. It transforms materials into visualized networks to provide new insights into their structure and context. Bibliopedia allows scholars to collaborate on the elaboration and improvement of these materials, is useful for active research, and serves as a gateway to long-term preservation and dissemination. Bibliopedia’s main technical innovation is the melding of the needs of researchers with those of librarians and technologists through open source software, standardized yet flexible metadata descriptions, and existing and emerging technologies that include Linked Open Data and data visualizations. Bibliopedia ensures that research and cultural heritage materials are available to the widest possible audiences, for long-term preservation, and for creative combinations with other resources. [cf. Bibliopedia]
Bibliopaedia may be my own personal construct, from two Greek words: βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix παιδεία, -paedia, meaning "education, rearing of a child".
- Bibliolatry, IMO, is most common among Christians, with the other Abrahamic faith communities running close second runners-up. However, I think it's important to point out that that claim is based on my ignorance of all other communities whose organizational structure is founded on, rooted in, or based on a physical text (scripture).
- Bibliolatry typically assumes complete, or near-complete, scriptural literality and "inerrancy". Proponents of bibliolatry typically maintain a "stenographic revelation" view of their scripture, whereas proponents of bibliopaedia, within a given faith community typically maintain a "participatory revelation" view of their scripture. Proponents of bibliopedia outside of a given faith community are generally heathen and don't believe in revelations, stenographic or participatory.
What?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It's the "word of God". While cultural ways of worship vary, I'd see the intention is not.
For example, I don't worship my deceased family. I give them food on special days, converse,things like that. One culture would say that's worship, most cultures would not.
It really depends. In the States the physical Bible is like gold. I'm not sure if people can have relationship with God without it. Weirdly, same as Baha'i so far I found out. Muslim, maybe. They do have special awareness of the Quran. I'm not sure which considers their books idols but US?
I can't tell the difference.
Gotcha. Come to think of it, my Italian-American Catholic family had a family Bible that was sort of cherished. Of course that could be because my brother was in the US Navy, bought it overseas (rather expensive at the time, I might add), and shipped it to my parents c.o.d.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Gotcha. Come to think of it, my Italian-American Catholic family had a family Bible that was sort of cherished. Of course that could be because my brother was in the US Navy, bought it overseas (rather expensive at the time, I might add), and shipped it to my parents c.o.d.
Hm. I'd be surprised if catholic charish their bibles. The Eucharist most definitely, though.
I could kind of compare a Catholic's worship to the Eucharist as a US christian evangelist worship to the physical bible. Only insofar I hear people Literally say they, for example, if they didn't have Bahaullah's words, we wouldn't know what he said about god, type of thing. I guess the idea of abrahamic worship expanded a bit but I'm not sure about Islam.
Anyway, Catholic? US Navy-that would do it.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Ignore my previous post.
Re: using the bible being a physical idol.
- Bibliolatry - Wikipedia -
- "Bibliolatry ... is the worship of a book, idolatrous homage to a book, or the deifying of a book."
- Nobody I know uses the bible as :a physical idol. However, ...
- In Christianity, bibliolatry can also be used
- to describe extreme devotion to the Bible or
- to refer to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
- Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible
- "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or,
- at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".
- Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility, others do not.
- Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible
- "as a pejorative label for the perceived practices of ... groups ... to whom the term is most often applied, [that is, to] Protestants of a fundamentalist and evangelical ... background who espouse biblical inerrancy and sola scriptura, ...i.e. scripture is the only divine authority."
- Bibliolatry, as a pejorative label and insult, is often applied to Christians by Christians. However, it can be applied to any faith community that believes its scriptures were given by God or a divine authority. For example, it could be applied to Muslims and their view of the Qur'an or to the Baha'is and their view of the Baha'u'llah's writings.
- Nobody I know uses the bible as :a physical idol. However, ...
- "Bibliolatry ... is the worship of a book, idolatrous homage to a book, or the deifying of a book."
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Thanks. I know it's weird but I met quite a few that can't go without their physical "right" book. My co-worker always has her bible but the mention of anything swaying from "that particular translation" would set her off. Another person I talked with here years ago both Hindu and the other Christian said they depend on their scripture for guidance in addition to practice (while others are either or). The latter, he mentioned god doesn't exist without "the book" and more specifically, "it", not just the message, can't be destroyed. The example he gave was that it existed from the beginning of time and because it has it always will (fallacy of sorts I read somewhere).
You have catholicism where the gospel is worshiped and in doing so it isn't done abstractly or in the mind but beautifully by the Mass standing and making spoken and signed gesture of its relevance. Of course you have the physical Eucharist that coincides with that.
I don't know any christians who don't adnorn something as an idol except maybe JW. Though, I hear arguments that the WatchTower magazine is an idol.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
I know catholic church and I haven't seen any worship of the Bible as God.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
an idol is something you think is actually god, and you would worship it (which is more than giving it devotion). I don't know anyone who treats their Bible as God.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
They do the word of god. Since the Word is god, and they treat the bible as coming directly from/as his word, without the bible, they don't know what the Word says. Thereby, it's hard to worship god or christ when you don't know what his Word says.
In non-idol outlook, the bible would be secondary and the Word would be primary. One would not need the bible to communicate with god because it would be a direct communication. There are christians who treat the bible as god so much insofar that whatever they say about their faith always have to be backed up by scripture.
Someone who doesn't idolize the bible can speak to others about what god says given they have a relationship with him. Those who idolize the bible (in how I see it unless I'm wrong?) cannot (and tell us they cannot) talk for themselves without the physical word in their hands, mouths, and fingers(?) to support them.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There are Christians who get confused by the label "word," because it is used in different contexts, but this minority of Christians use them interchangeably. On one hand it gets used to denote the scriptures. On the other hand, in John 1 it gets used to denote the essence of the pre-existent part of God which became incarnate later (whatever that essence might be). These are two very different definitions, and can't be conflated, meaning that this subset of Christians are quite confused.
MOST Christians, however, are not confused by this. For them the word of God aka the scriptures, are separate from Logos the pre-incarnate essence. Thus for them there is no belief that the scriptures are God.
I won't speak to worshiping Christ, as I am a Jew, and believe that worshiping a man is a very big mistake. However, I do believe in worshiping God, and I have found that most people are unfamiliar with the sacred texts, yet believe in God, and many worship him in their own way just fine.
Just to clarify a point, Christians offer worship to God, through, in the name of, Christ, it is not a worship of Christ.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Please don't bold. Throws my eyes off when I'm reading.
They don't bow down to scripture. It's the only way they know what god says. It's not just christians. The scripture literally is the Word (play on words-dictations) "of" god.
If it is not the word of god, christians can toss the bible aside and talk to god directly. Maybe there are a minority of christians who talk to god directly. Catholics do more so than fundamentalist but they worship the Eucharist so it's a give and take.
In both Eucharist and the Bible they are both idols (sacraments of the faith) and because they are so, they are heavily worshiped by means of it being the cornerstone of their faith.
Tell a christian the bible is "just the bible" go elsewhere and find the word, I don't know if they'd really take that into consideration. I mean. Tell JW to do that, they'd probably drop.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Actually we Jews do bow at the waist to the Torah at a certain point when the Ark is open. It is still not the same sort of worship that we give to God alone. That's a just FYI.
When God spoke to Moses, it was God speaking directly.
When God "spoke" to the Prophets, it was only through visions and dreams... that's a lesser form of communication and subject to metaphorical interpretation. God did not "dictate" to the Prophets the way he dictated the laws to Moses.
As for the Writings, the rest of the Tanakh, they are merely written by men but inspired by God. That's a much much lower level of communication--you might say it's more man, less God. They are certainly not dictated.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It apparently depends on the Christian you ask. I believe you are the only Catholic I know of who insists you do not worship Jesus. Unless I'm mistaken, we've had this discussion before.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Thank you. I learned something new. I appreciate other perspectives outside those I'm most familiar from christians.
Yes, we've had the discussion before. The final doxology in the Eucharistic Prayer, which for Catholics is the 'source and summit of faith', praise, glory, is to the Father, through Jesus, in the Spirit.
I can only speak for Catholics.