If the bible is the word of god!?

Question

If the bible is the word of god, then why should'nt we take the bible as the sole source to know the things of god?

Answer 1

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

Answer 2

Is it the word of God? Well, let's see, Has anything that was said was going to happen, happened? Did it happen the way the Bible said that it would? There is a pretty good argument for the Bible, but in truth, it was written by men, and women that were influenced by the times and the cultures they lived in, on a superficial level. God has instruments though, and these individuals were probably divinely inspired. At the very least, they were individuals that felt a great need to write down what they felt needed to be preserved for all time and that is deserving of respect and open mindedness. Some gave their lives, others lost everything, others still were not even preserved, but all were looking to pass on for future generations, their perspective and attention to details, so that all might benefit in ways. That is divine to me.

Answer 3

It is a valid argument. It should be the highest and greatest source. Should be the highest form of the revealed word. Should be the only form of inspired Word of God. However, men are not content, liberalism took the Bible and went in search of the "historical Jesus" disected the Bible. Others, went in search of the "actually" word, and started dissecting the Word, saying this was the word where this portion was not. So once they started this slippery slope it only gets worse with time. Till they make their word more authoritative than the word itself. You can not tell them they are wrong because they have the "PhD's" and the letters and all the marlarky to prove you who have not studied as an ignorant one. Just as the Jews said of Jesus.

Answer 4

Because God revealed the fullness of His truth to His Church. His Church knew and preached the fullness of truth before a word of the New Testament was written, and for centuries before the Bible itself was finally compiled. His Church would be teaching the fullness of truth today, even if the Bible had never been written. The Bible was never intended to be a complete source of Christian truth. In fact, the Bible was never intended at all, by its writers.. The Bible is a collection of early Catholic writings combined with the Hebrew Scriptures. These writings by early leaders of the Catholic Church were written in a variety of times and places, for a variety of reasons. No scriptural writer ever intended to produce a complete manual of Christian living. In fact, no writer ever dreamed his writing would end up as part of a book. Christ didn't hand us a book as a guide to building a Church. Rather, He established a Church, guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would guide that Church to all truth, and gave that Church the power of binding and loosing, and it is through the divinely guaranteed teaching of that Church that the Bible came into existence. The doctrinal chaos that exists among those who attempt to use the Bible as their only source is clear evidence that doing so cannot be the will of God, Who expressed His will that all His followers be ONE.
.

Answer 5

Because there's no evidence of any kind that the bible has anything to do with a god (for which there is also no evidence).
There is considerable evidence that shows the origins of the books that make up the bible as being borrowed from other sources, being mythical creation stories, describing events and quoting people by writers who never saw the events and never met the people they quote...
There are also thousands of errors, contradictions, outright lies -- all completely provable -- and other problems with the bible.

All of the evidence points to a book that was put together by men wishing to promote a certain point of view, using writings of men who were also looking to promote a certain point of view. That makes it a somewhat interesting curiosity -- it doesn't make it "the word of god."

Answer 6

Jesus never said the scriptures contain the word of God. He said they were the word of God. Therefore, we can see that the word of God is the written form of Scripture.
Jesus called the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (all of the Old Testament) scripture and he says that the Scriptures cannot be broken, cannot fail. He was obviously referring to the written form of the Old Testament:

Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures."

Answer 7

Yes. The Bible says that man has to give an account of his life from "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", so I'd say that's a no-brainer!

Answer 8

Because the fact that the Bible is the word of God doesn't mean it's the ONLY words God has ever spoken to man. It defies common sense to think so.

Answer 9

Because false prophets have confused and deceived people into thinking that the Bible is not the word of God, thats why there are so many so called holy books about and therefore not one source to refer to.

Answer 10

My, my, my...

Let's start with the fact that 2000 years ago, nothing was known about bacteria or viruses or the molecular nature of matter. If you are a believer, are these things not the things of god? If they are, then there is far more out there than what can be found in the bible.