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

From: <>
Date: Sun Jan 11 2004 - 23:10:58 EST

> >
> > I agree with everything you wrote, except "these are not 3 different
> > of God but 1" - I am confused because this does not differentiate Jesus
> > Christ as the living Word of God from the Bible as the written Word of
> > Did I miss something?
> The Bible functions as the Word of God when it proclaims Christ and/or
> the proclamation of Christ. ("The whole of Scripture is one book, and
that one book is
> Christ" - Hugh of St. Victor.) But it does _not_ function as the Word of
God when used
> in other ways - as a club with which to beat infidels over the head, as a
science text
> to tell about the structure or age of the earth, as a timetable for the
end of the
> world, &c. The Bible isn't unique in this regard. If I imagined that The
Origin of
> Species was really a coded critique of Victorian society, I would not be
reading it as
> "the word of Darwin" - in spite of Darwin's authorship - because I
wouldn't be using it
> for the purpose for which Darwin intended it.
> Shalom,
> George

I agree with the intent but disagree with the ontologically relativistic
definition. To use your Dawin example - the Origin of Species is
*objectively* the Word of Darwin regardless of how it is used or abused.
This is its absolute ontological status. The abuse would merely occlude
perception of what is really there. Proper use would reveal the true
thoughts and intents of Darwin (in as much as he adequated expressed them).

The same holds for the Bible as the witten Word of God. Abuse of the text
does not change its ontological status as the Word of God.

Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
Received on Sun Jan 11 23:10:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 11 2004 - 23:10:05 EST