Re: The Whole Bible Revealed in Zechariah (was Re: NT truth (formerly inerrancy?))

From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
Date: Wed Jan 07 2004 - 01:24:38 EST

From: "Don Winterstein"

>
> Richard McGough wrote:
>
>> "Concerning the Word of the Lord as refering to the
>> Bible - of course it does not *always* refer to the
>> Bible, but that certainly does not mean that it
>> *never* so applies."
>
> Some years ago I did a concordance study on
> "Word of God," etc., and as I recall I was
> unable to find a single instance where that and like
> terms referred unambiguously to Scripture. There
> were a couple of cases where that was a *possible*
> meaning. Can you cite instances where Scripture
> is the *only* reasonable meaning?
>
> Don
>
A most excellent question Don. Ambiguity is fundamental to God's Word, but
that's too deep to go into right now. I will therefore attempt to answer
your question in a simpler fashion.

The short answer is "no." Any reference to the Word of God in the Bible was
written before the Bible was completed. This means that if the words were to
have any sense when originally given, they had to be interpretable as
refering to something other than the whole Bible as we currently know it.
This implies that any reference to the Word of God in the Bible will be
necessarily ambigous. Case in point, 2 Timothy 3.16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Members of this list take it as quite obvious that the word "scripture" in
this verse could never be taken as *unambiguously* refering to the whole
Bible because it was written before the Bible was completed.

Of course, that conclusion is fully dependant on the belief that the Bible
is a human book. It is based on reasoning about what the *man* Paul intended
as the referent when he wrote it, which obviously could not be books that
were yet to be written!

My view, on the other hand, is that the Bible is God's Book, and must be
read in light of God as its ultimate Author. When I read verses like 2
Timothy 3.16 or Revelation 22.18, it is impossible for me to believe that
God is speaking of anything less than His whole Bible, which He fully knew
long before it was manifested on earth.

This is particularly obvious when I imagine what I would have done if I were
to write a book like the Bible. If I had written the whole Bible, and placed
a statement like Revelation 22.18 right at the very end of it, not a person
on the planet would doubt my intent.

Reasoning about the Bible in light of God as its true Author really clears
things up, doesn't it?

Now let me ask you a question. Is there any reason we should not take the
visions of Zechariah 3 and 4 as prophetic of the whole Bible?

Richard
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
Received on Wed Jan 7 01:23:49 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 07 2004 - 01:23:50 EST