Board index ‹ Bible

[Gibson]

Which do you put faith in more—the Bible or God? This is kind of a confusing question, but what I mean is, If someone tells you (a priest, for example) that they talked to God, or received a message somehow, that told them the bible shouldn't be taken seriously and most of it has been misinterpreted, do you trust the person who spoke with God or still hold the religious text above that? Basically, does a message from God have priority over text?

Also take into account that the text was written by people who were supposedly communicating with God. So you're technically still only taking people's word in faith. Who's to say they weren't deceived?

[jimwalton]

Scripture is God-breathed. It is what God says. God would never tell us anything contrary to Scripture. If someone with authority told you they talked to God or received a message that told them the Bible was unreliable, you should ignore that person and trust the Bible instead. The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe, and 100 times out of 100 I would trust it over the word of a person, even a priest, for example.

The text was written by people who were supposedly communicating with God, but God substantiated his word to them with signs of confirmation.

Who's to say they weren't deceived? Many things. The truth of the prophecies spoken, the outworking of that same word in history, the inner consistency of the biblical text over time, languages, and cultures, and the power of the text to do what it claims to do: reveal God and change lives.

[Gibson]

Okay, but what about a feeling/message you receive yourself? Does text outweigh personal experience?

[jimwalton]

Yes, text outweighs personal experience. I have learned that I can't trust the thoughts of my mind as far as a "message from God." I cannot reliably distinguish between my own ideas, leanings, preferences, and a message from God. I think many millions of tragedies and travesties have happened because people think God was talking to them, when frankly what had happened was that a thought had popped into their heads and they attributed it to God, and then proceeded to do something wrong or stupid because they fooled themselves and justified it.

There have been innumerable times when I perceived that "God was talking to me" that turned out to be not that at all; instead, I was talking to me. The Bible, however, is a set word. I have to read it, understand it, and interpret it properly, but it's not volatile like my mind is. We also have 2000 years of interpretations and understandings of the Bible to guide me to its proper meaning, trying to safeguard against making the Bible say what I want it to say (though some people still manage to do that). The text definitely outweighs personal experience. The text is God-breathed, my thoughts are not.

[Gibson]

So you're saying those prophets were proven right by what happened later? See a problem here? Also, there are many other religions whose prophecies were claimed to come true. All the more reason to trust the direct personal connection to God over any person or the text they create. Just like my original question; Do you have faith in God or the people who claim they know God?

[jimwalton]

> So you're saying those prophets were proven right by what happened later? See a problem here?

No, not exactly. That's not focused enough to say, "Yeah, that's what I was saying." The prophets received their message directly from God, and they knew it. But then that word was also established by a sign and substantiated by corroborating evidence. If it was just "proven right by what happened later," it opens the door for all kinds of abuse. As humans we are outrageously terrible at interpreting our circumstances, especially when it comes to spiritual matters, and tend more than anything to see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear, and believe what we want to believe—a recipe for fiasco. Mostly the prophets spoke the word of God because God had actually spoken to them, they knew it, and they said what they were told to say, even if there weren't accompanying signs or corroborating evidence.

But our own thoughts are outrageously unreliable when it comes to spiritual matters, and that's why the objective text is the highest and final authority. Many abuses and tragedies have come from a claim that "God spoke to me." God has spoken to people, and he does, but before you blab it around, you better know 100% that it was God. The prophets knew that; a lot of modern people don't, but they claim it anyway. There is great danger there. All the more reason not to trust the direct personal connection to God over the text created when we "know" God spoke.

So back to your original question: First of all, you are setting up a false dichotomy: Faith in the Bible is faith in God, and faith in the people God inspired to write it. So I don't have to choose between those. But I would have faith in the text 100% over anything a person said God told them. If God really did tell them something (which he does on occasion), it would blend in perfectly with Scripture. God would never tell us anything contrary to Scripture.

[Gibson]

So as long as someone's thoughts coincide with scripture, even the barbaric stuff, they are of God? That gives a lot of slack for abuse and interpretation. Which hammers the point home more.

[jimwalton]

No, that's not what I said, so it doesn't hammer your point home more. On the negative, if they go against Scripture, they are not from God. But on the positive, just because they coincide with Scripture doesn't mean they ARE from God. I agree with you that gives a lot of slack for abuse and misinterpretation. Agreed. They're are from God if God is the source (duh, self-explanatory), not just because they may coincide with Scripture. Any idiot could concoct some weirdo thing that didn't happen to contradict Scripture, but that doesn't mean it's of God.

That's like saying, um, US foreign policy specifies that our military is in a mode of non-engagement of enemy forces in Afghanistan (obviously I'm making this up, but for an analogy). Well, some idiot reasons: Then it's OK for US military to rape women, steal goods, and destroy archaeological sites, because none of that is "engagement of enemy forces". Well, that's ridiculous. Just because it may coincide with stated policy doesn't mean it's OK. In the same way, just because it may coincide with Scripture doesn't mean it's of God. There's far more to it than that.

[Gibson]

You say, "They are from God if God is the source." Who's to say God is the source?

[jimwalton]

Oh, OK, that's different. The Bible says Moses talked face to face with God, actually heard his voice, and wrote down what he said. But he always went up into the mountain to talk with God, so nobody else saw Him. So the question became (for them as well as for us): Was Moses really talking with God?

For the ancients, the proof came in various signs. Moses was able to call forth and call off the ten plagues. The Lord parted the Reed Sea, and closed back on the Egyptians. Manna and quail, as well as water, were provided at critical times. The Amalekites were defeated by seemingly miraculous means (Ex. 17.8-16). These events and many more were given as substantiation that the Lord was truly there, giving his guidance, and speaking to Moses. The people who were there as eyewitnesses believed. We have no remaining evidence of these passing phenomena, so we each have to decide whether to trust the accounts as reliable or to spurn them as mythological. Usually people who have had personal experiences with God are prone to believe that Moses also had an experience with God, and the account is truthful, and God was truly the source. In contrast, people who have not had an experience with God consider it all to be rubbish.