The Bible is NOT the Word of God!?

by Sean Finnegan

Let me start by saying that I do believe that the Bible is true, divinely inspired, and authoritative.  However, I would like to examine the phrase “Word of God” in order to understand its biblical definition.  To my knowledge, the Bible never calls itself “the Word of God.” Instead, the terms, “it is written,” “Scripture,” and “the law and prophets” are used. Nevertheless, the Scriptures certainly do contain much of what God has said (i.e. God’s words). Also, the “Word of God” is used many times (especially in the Old Testament) as a message from God (i.e. prophetic word for a king or nation). The Psalmist sees “the word” as a synonym for a law, statute, command, or precept of God. This usage of “word of God” as “God’s command” is present in the New Testament as well (Mark 7:13; John 10:35). Even so, as I have looked at the various places that “the word” is used in the New Testament, I have become increasingly aware of its meaning as the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Matthew 13:18-23
18 “Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 “When anyone hears the word of the Kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. 20 “The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 “And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 “And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.” (also see Mark 4 and Luke 8. )

This parable of the seed and the sower is the foundational parable in understanding anything (Mark 4:13). According to Mark 4:14 the sower’s seed is “the word.” In Matthew 13:19 the term is expanded to be “word of the Kingdom.” Throughout the parable “the word” is the primary message that is understood, accepted, held fast to, and produces fruit in the believer. It is important to note that Jesus delivered this parable to Jews in Palestine who already believed and read (or at least heard) the Scriptures each Sabbath. Jesus is not asking them to accept the Bible (they had already done that). Instead he is asking them to accept “the word of the Kingdom,” his gospel, which in other places is summarized by the catch-phrase “Repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand” (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15).

Acts 4:3-4
3 And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.

Peter had preached the gospel to the crowd which gathered after the healing of the lame man. Many of these people who hear “the word” (translated as message in the NASB) believed. Going back to his word/message yields a strong call to repentance in light of Jesus being the messiah, the coming restoration of all things, and the forgiveness available through Christ (i.e. the gospel).

Acts 8:4-5, 12, 14, 25
4 Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them . . . 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike . . . 14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, . . .  25 So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.

I believe that all of the above bolded words are synonymous. “the word” = “Christ” = “gospel about the Kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ” = “the word of God” = “the word of the Lord” = “the gospel.” To come up with a different definition for each of these phrases would cut the record of Philip preaching in Samaria into a myriad of confusing pieces. Luke is not going to use the same word each time. This is just the same today, one time I may say “America” and another “The U.S.” or “The United States” but everyone knows that these are interchangeable.

Acts 17:10-13
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.

Paul’s mission was to preach the gospel of the Kingdom from city to city (Acts 19:8; 20:24-25; 28:23, 30-31). When he arrived in Berea, they received his gospel message (i.e. “the word”) and checked it against the Scriptures to see if the message was correct. Thus, the word is not one to one equivalent with the Scriptures (although the Bible certainly does contain the word/message).

1 Peter 1:23-25
23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For, “ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF, 25 BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER.” And this is the word which was preached to you.

The Word (gospel) is what must be believed in order to be born again (remember the seed from the parable of the sower?). This is the word that was preached. The word for preach in this verse is evangelizo and it is the verbal form of the word evangelion (the gospel). Although this fact is lost in English the point is that to preach is really to preach the gospel. It is like saying that I am going out to gospel to my friend (i.e. preach = verbal form of gospel). Here in this verse it says “this is the word which was ‘gospelled’ (or preached) to you.” Thus the word (at least in this verse) is definitely 1-to-1 equivalent with the gospel.

I know that it is common to refer to the Bible as “the Word” but if the Bible never does this then we are unwittingly changing the definition of “the Word.” Certainly this is something we need to consider.  After all, we are the people of the Book, the ones who base our theology on the Scriptures rather than on received tradition.


32 responses to this post.

  1. Sean: I am greatly enjoying your web site and the simple and accurate presentation of the truth you develop here. The word of God, the seed in our hearts…may it bring forth the fruit He intends…He says it will! God be Blessed! Jesus is Lord!
    Your new friend in the Messiah!


  2. Posted by sean on February 13, 2008 at 10:37 am


    Nice to see you on the blog. Thank you for the kind words. Check out our kingdom resources page some time.

    grace & peace


  3. Posted by Sandra on June 10, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    The bible is not divinely inspired….. it is inspired by those in power seeking a way to control the masses. Wake up & shake off your sheep skin.


  4. Sandra, thanks for logging on to Higher Ground.

    May I ask you a few questions in regards to your statements? Could you explain a bit more why you do not think the Bible is divinely inspired?


  5. I wrote a small book ‘The Bible that Dethrones Christ’ which sets out an argument along the same lines but with perhaps a more radical re-positioning of the status of Christ in the historical narrative. And because I worship Christ and not the Bible,I’ve found myself snubbed by church goers.
    I personally believe their are texts, quotes, portrayals of God, practices, beliefs, ideas, in the Bible that are not inspired by God but by the contrary spirit of man that was at war with God’s Spirit, in particular at war with the Spirit of the Law.
    It is refreshing to see the Bible in its context but more exhilarating to see Jesus given the status that is due.


  6. Posted by Sondra on December 15, 2008 at 1:24 am

    I don’t believe that a lot of the Bible was inspired by a Benevolent and loving Creator. I believe that the Bible was written and inspired by man. That is why it doesn’t make sense. That is why they can paint the All Mighty with traits of mere men and say that He told Moses and other so called Holy men to slaughter men, women and children. That is impossible! A loving and just Creator does not slaughter or tell others to do so! I also have done a lot of research on how the Bible was voted on by mere men and what Books/Canons they decided to put into the Bible. The Bible was not originally set apart by different chapters. Do your research and pray to the All Mighty…Spirit will show you the truth. Also the letter J has only been in existence for the last 400-500 years so the Savior’s name was never Jesus. It amazes me how many people believe in a book that they haven’t even used common sense to do the research behind how it came into being. The names were Jewish not Spanish. Jesus is a Spanish name. Do the research yourself. Thank you for allowing me to express my honest opinion about a book that I have studied for over 20+ years.


  7. Greetings:
    You are correct. The letter “J” has only been in use for a few hundred years. And, the name “Jesus” is actualy an anglo-version of the Hebrew name.

    We are told that his name is supposed to mean “God Saves” or more specifically “Jehovah Saves”. If that is the case, his name was most likely:


    But to use this as a criticism of the Bible is baseless. In the US we claim that Christopher Columbus found North America. However, if you were around in 1492, you would have known his as Christobal Colon. The Christopher Columbus is an anglo-version of the Spanish. And that is not at all uncommon.

    I’ve done extensive research on the Bible – who wrote it an when, how it was complied and what many of the stories and parables really mean.

    So what if the original writings were not broken down into chapters and verses. This was done not to manipulate the teachings, but to make it easier for us non-priests to locate certain passages and stories. These are reference tools – nothing more.

    In your posting you stated “That is why they can paint the All Mighty with traits of mere men” But you are now trying to do exactly the same thing. You’ve decided that your version of a “loving God” wouldn’t do certain things – things that you as a “moral” person would not do. You are placing your own moral judgement upon a “Devine Creator”.

    But, how about everyday life? Do we blame God when people are killed or injured by a massive storm, earthquake or volcanic eruption? Do we ask, “How can a “loving” God do such a thing?”

    Believe me when I tell you that I have gone through many of the same struggles you are going through. I’ve had many of the same thoughts and questions in my own mind.

    Ironically, only yesterday I was speaking with my own Pastor about this very subject of how God can do certain things.

    A wonderful and patient man (he has to be patient – he minsters to me) explained it this way, and frankly, this is the very first time an explanation has made sense to me…

    If you believe that God is the Creator, you have to believe that he has total can complete dominion over his creation. Therefore, he has the right to do whatever he wants. And we cannot sit in judgement on how God chooses to glorify Himself.

    To be honest, I really didn’t like the answer, but it makes sense to me.

    In your posting you claim you are judging men. To me you are judging God.

    And YES the Bible as we have it now is a complied document. But, you yourself compile your own reading source. You make judgements daily on what you should read and what you do not wish to read. Some one or some group of people had to come up with a group of texts. It would have been impossible to include every possible writing of the period.

    I’ve read the Gnostic Gosples. I’ve read and studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hamadi works as well. Have You? Ultimately, what is your point that some documents were not included and other were.

    To me, and take it from someone who has been in denial for several years, your questions are excuses for not wanting to believe anything. If you believe the Gnostic Gosples then great, go forth. But don’t blame everyone else because your personal idea of God and how God should act is different.



    • Posted by DylanRSM on March 25, 2012 at 6:37 am

      Perhaps if you are still questioning things like how a loving God can do such things to humanity and its own creation, you should refrain from speaking authoritatively here on them. . . no matter what level of semantics you push on this, it still remains, the Bible is nothing more than a written record of man’s struggle to understand (and create) the persona of God. Of course, we were brought into being by a intelligent Creator, there is no doubt about that. But then we created God in our image, through evolved Mythologies and the like. Compare the similarities of world mythologies which formed other religions, consider the fact that Hebrew religion did not even acknowledge One God until the breakoff of Asherah as the consort of Yahweh, nor did they even acknowledge of know of angels, heaven or hell, until they were invited back in from exhile by King Cyrus. All convenient mythologies and assyncretizations made in the name of good politics, my friend. You would do better to acknowledge these things, than sit and banter on literalism and the slim, minute minute chance that everything in the Bible is all divinely inspired and inerrant. That’s a pretty bold and spiritually arrogant statement to make, and is truly the root of all evil in this world. Your absolutism about truth, foundation that God is revealed through the erroneous writings of ignorant men, and blind acceptance of a way that promotes not peace but bloodshed over the ages, is a testament to the truth of what you are proclaiming.


  8. Doug,

    Nicely said.

    Sandra, in response to:

    it is inspired by those in power seeking a way to control the masses

    Many people have suggested this. However, if you took the time to study the texts, and the contexts in which they were written, you would find quite the opposite. The texts included in the Bible (in addition to many of the ones not found there) are written by minority groups, fringe groups, oppressed groups. So often we are told that the “victors write History”. That is true when it comes to commenting and secondary sources. However, this is the world of primary sources. Everyone writes history here, including the oppressed, all throughout history. This is a story told to me by Professor Richard Horsely, a professor at UMass Amherst. He had some students from an oppressed African nation (I can’t remember which at the moment). And when he first met them, they considered the Bible “his” text, that is the text of the empire. But after taking some history courses and realizing what the Bible really is. They went up to him, and told him, this is not your text, this is *our* text. It belongs to us, because we are the oppressed, you are the powerful.


  9. Jesus said that to know the Father you must know the Son. Therefor, all those people living in the OT times didn’t know God because they hadn’t known Jesus. They knew of God and heard from God on occasions but they didn’t know what God was really like and so presented God as bearing all the fuit of their own sinful natures because that’s how they were and didn’t know any different.
    The OT was included in the Bible at the insistence of Roman Catholic priests in Corinth who wanted a divine right to maintain the Roman Empire. By including the OT and calling it God’s Word it gave them a divine right to invade other people’s countries and kill them.
    God made it clear at the transfiguration that Jesus should be listened to above Moses and Elijah.
    Jesus made it clear that hearing His words and believing in Him brought salvation.
    Jesus made it clear that the old and new don’t go together and sought to overthrow the religious and legal traditions of the Jewish Bible on which the church was built.

    And yet inspite of all of this, we still call the words and actions of a people who didn’t know God The Word Of God.

    Believers, It’s time to get the Bible off Jesus’ back!!!


  10. I agree totally with the previous contribution.
    Throughout my experience of church life in various denominations, both mainstream, evangelical offshoots and pentecostal, I have encountered believers who exhibit many of the split personality traits that is an inimical feature of a flawed canon that weds old wine with new – a devastatingly toxic wine. Christians hold seemingly conflicting beliefs as to the nature, character, will and purposes of God within their own fellowships because they are too busy listening to teachers rumbling through the pages of the OT trying to justify its relationship with Christ as an equal partner in communicating the truth about God. Consequently, they have no room left for Jesus’ teaching because their minds have been filled with so much crap from the OT. No wonder many believers find it difficult to open their mouths and worship God in Spirit and in Truth – when the picture they have of God is one of vengeance, slaughter, executions and retaliation among others.
    The problem with having a canon is that it stands like a diversion sign, diverting people away from Christ into a scripture spoken by sinners that sinners have decreed as God breathed. This situation really insults Christ who spoke of Himself as the only One who knew God fully. Now, He has to share His teaching post in Heaven with a bunch of sinners who didn’t know God as fully. And to add insult to injury, as Andrew reminds us, even though God Himself endorsed Jesus as the One we should be taught by, men have set up an apostolic hierarchy to act vicariously as teachers on His behalf – presumably because Jesus is incapable of teaching from His words direct to the heart and mind of men and women through the Holy Spirit as HE PROMISED.
    Here is a sample from my 96 Theses, which is a proposal to believers that the time has come for Christians to trim their wicks and be filled with the oil of Jesus word’s, in preparation for what is about to befall the world.
    Thesis 21
    Jesus said, ‘You must eat my flesh and drink my blood, for it is real food’ because He wanted a single source of truth to give creation a single minded view of God. The Bible is a mixture of two types of food; the flesh and blood of man exhibiting his sinful nature, and the flesh and blood of Christ exhibiting God’s nature. To eat both as an authoritative narrative for spiritual and intellectual edification not only makes rubbish of all that Christ suffered for the enduring power of His words but demeans His words to a recipe for splitting personalities. Both the Bible and the Q’uran are as about as holy and as reliable as a jam sponge for revealing to the world the beauty of God in Christ.


  11. It’s quite simple, and plainly written-

    CHRIST is the “Word” of God, along with the sword of the spirit.

    John 1:1,14
    Rev 9:13
    Eph 6:17

    And the word of God lives within US.

    1 John 2:14



    • Posted by steve on August 21, 2009 at 10:24 pm

      sorry but it doesn’t say the bible is the word of god. it does say the word was god but exactly what that means is a bit of a mystery. all I know is what the original poster said. That nowhere in the bible does it say the bible itself is the word. this is brainwashed thinking. the word of god is the gospel.


  12. […] The Bible is NOT the Word of God!? I love this article so much I wanted to mirror it on my blog. Please visit this mans blog. […]


  13. It is true that the Bible is not exactly the word of God. In fact, the concept of the Bible is not even in the Bible. Jesus repeatedly spoke of “that which is written” or “the scriptures,” but he never called either one “the word of God.”

    But the concept of the word of God is certainly in the Bible. The Bible clearly identifies the word of God as that which is spoken. The Old Testament repeatedly explains that the Spirit of God would come upon someone, usually a prophet, and that person would speak the word of God.

    So, the Bible is “the which is written,” or “the scriptures, and the word of God is that which was spoken, both being done according to the influence of the Spirit of God, which is the Holy Spirit.

    Servetus the Evangelical
    Author of The Restitution of Jesus Christ


  14. Posted by John on September 7, 2009 at 10:11 am

    I appreciate the respectful tone of this discussion, even amongst those who disagree.

    I am sort of on the side of Sandra–and, sort of not. I agree that the bible is not divinely inspired, but I disagree that it was created for the express purpose of controlling the masses. It is historically important; it is an assemblage of books written by people who believed in God in a certain way.

    The problem with humans is when we start by declaring a single book such as the Bible to be the absolute truth, and then begin to interpret all the rest of existence and our experience through that narrow lens–having never in fact validated the “anchor” of our perceptions–ie in this case the “Truth” of the bible. It makes much more sense to me to look at all of existence, much as we can perceive it, and then try to form a perception of reality based on the comprehensive experience. In other words, ALL of creation becomes the “word of God.” If the bible fits into it and proves itself to be infallible, well and good, but one cannot start out by assuming the bible is infallible, and then forcing the rest of reality to fit into that perception through convolutions of reasoning.

    The reality of the cosmos has a consistent creation story, borne out by independent sciences–astronomy, genetics, biology, taxonomy, geology. We live in a universe–a magnificent, expanding universe–that came into existence over 13 billion years ago. Our earth is but a speck in it; there are billions of galaxies, each containing billlions of stars, and countless planets, some undoubtedly similar to our 4.6 billion year old Earth. We evolved here; we can trace our human ancestry and the migrations of humans over time through genetic variations. A remarkable and consistent story is told. Great apes such as chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestry, and in fact almost all life shares genetic similarities. Evolution is ongoing and can be observed.

    These are all facts that the bible does not teach, that one derives from scientific observation. Scientists are not people out to prove the bible wrong; they are just looking, and letting the chips fall where they may. In fact, there are many Christian scientists who can reconcile evolution and a 13+ billion year old universe with their beliefs.

    The problem comes in when you start by declaring the bible to be, literally, the word of God. Then creationism becomes the standard of truth, and you can no longer dispassionately examine the evidence of to me what is a much more interesting creation story–the Big Bang. The Big Bang does not exclude God, of course–no one knows what caused the Big Bang, and it is not out of the question that it was caused by a creator who had something in mind.

    But, Sandra is sort of right–in fact, there is a lot of control to be gained by making it a topic of non-discussion that the Bible is the absolute word of God. It is these modern-day wolves in sheeps clothing that attempt to exploit Christianity. They then begin picking and choosing scriptures that support their world view, and use it to advocate for everything from gun rights to giving their church lots of money, to support of Israel, and any candidate (mainly Republican) who will invoke religion, all the while supporting the most non-Christian of lobbies; in the past they were the pulpits through which slavery was justified (read: Cain and Abel (Cain and his descendants being “Marked” and the mark being interpreted as black people, or the book of Philemon, where Paul encourages a runaway slave to return to his master!).

    A true seeker does not seek the security that believing in a book without question offers. A true seeker seeks truth, and is not afraid to look anywhere, and constantly deal with the possibility that their worldview may be radically shaken up and overturned as they gather new knowledge or science makes new advances. As well, a true seeker must be willing to look outside traditional definitions of God. Sandra again is right in my opinion: the bible has certain perceptions regarding God’s goodness, but those perceptions do not seem at all to me to be true. God cannot be the creator and absolute good, because the creation is clearly not absolute good. It is not that we are passing judgement on God, as asserted by Doug Huggins. One is merely making an observation: there is pain and suffering in this universe, and God, IF such an all-powerful creator consciousness exists, allows it to happen all the time, and created the creation in which it exists. We are not telling God what he can or cannot do, or judging; we are just observing, IF God is the conscious creator, and IF God is all-powerful, then God really is responsible for suffering. Don’t flog it off on free choice: God created that too if in fact it exists.

    But, those are big IFs, which no one can prove. We all are decieved when we are led into believing that either God is an all-powerful, loving, involved Father-type, or the alternative–God doesn’t exist. God could be anything in between.

    A true seeker will look at the nature of things and try to fit the information into a coherent pattern. We must also always be ready to acknowledge that we simply do not know lots of stuff–that’s agnosticism, probably the truest belief system in the world. Much as a penguin does not understand a nuclear reactor, well, that’s about how much we don’t really understand the nature of creation or reality or God. But, we seek to pigeon-hole God into a narrow definition because it gives us comfort: someone big–in fact, THE biggest–is looking after us, which is something of course that we must take on faith since wars, earthquakes, tsunamis, and whatever else horrible happens; it just must happen for a reason and we must be cared for in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary!

    About the only thing I am sure of is that some people in this world care for me, and I care for them, enough to die for them. But to me, Christianity, whether you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible or not, is man creating God in his image: we wish God were all-powerful, cared for us, was in control, had a reason for everything that included taking care of us forever, and so, a religion evolves that gives us that comfort, in spite of any evidence to the contrary. In that respect, Christianity is little different from a lot of other religions which start with the book and finish with a lot of comforting thoughts about one’s importance and eternal comfort.

    Well, that’s my rant. Sorry if I’m a little thin on bible quotations, but the bible holds no absolute truth value to me. It has to earn that position, verse by verse, and such things are not to be accepted as a matter of faith. It’s a book, my friends, written bit by bit by men, assembled by a committee, and then declared as divine, not by God, not by Jesus–by MEN. If you want to start with a divine book–why not just accept the Quran as a starting point?

    I say: start instead with what you can experience and observe–and let the chips fall where they may. Then, you might get to the “truth that shall set you free.” Me, I don’t negate the possibility that an all-powerful God will come down and thump my reality with a supernatural experience that will change my entire belief system. I’m open! But until it happens, I am more than thrilled to have the “word of God”–or truth, as l prefer to call it, streaming to me from every corner of creation, 24/7.

    Hey, that’s a better starting point: GOD IS TRUTH. Not good, not all-powerful, but what is.


  15. Posted by John T on October 19, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    I better way to look at this is NOT God is Truth, But Truth is God.
    If someone beleives that the bible is the Word of God, meaning that God guided the men writing it, they should consider the things in the bible that do not make sense.
    Should a disobediant son be stoned to death in public? Should a father be allowed to sell his daughter into slavery? Should a daughter be stoned to death if she is not a virgin on her wedding day (we woudl have a lot of stoning deaths wouldn’t we! Jesus stated several times that all the old testament should be followed too.
    When the bible was written people didn’t know that the stars in the sky are 100s million miles away, what causes desease, that the earth revolves around the sun (not vis versa). There is too much crazy stuff in the bible to believe it.


  16. John T, thanks for logging on . Have you read the Bible? I am asking in light of your comments because they seem to be coming from a point of view that has an ignorance to the information and progression of Scripture. I look forward to talking to you more.

    (By the way, this post is not about whether or not the Bible is true. This post is about what the term “word of God” means when used in Scripture, primarily the New Testament)


  17. Posted by kathryn on October 20, 2009 at 11:39 pm

    i will never believe the bible is the word of god or words becuase men wrote it, and alot of the books are letters written to different churches in different times. but the reasl reason i dont believe is the bible is the word of god is the psalms, david wrote most of it and were praises to god and often see that he was frustrated with god at times.

    bottom line
    bible is old
    very old
    out dated
    times have changed
    environments have changed
    circumstances has changed
    i have no faith in it much
    becuase the words
    just stay in the page
    and oftern i have experienced
    it backfires!!!!!

    i was so relieved to see someone else
    the bible is at stake
    yeah it is
    because circumstance keeps proving it wrong
    again and again and again

    however i do belive the devil is real
    is comes to rob kill and destroy
    that happens
    and dose happen
    where is god

    the devil exists
    i totally beleive the devil exists
    i still to this day am not convinced god existst!!!!!


    • I Hope that you have a change of heart so that you won’t be hell bound on judgement day. Right now the devil has you right where he wants you and if you don’t have the strength – through God – and if you don’t have the sword to fight – which is the word / knowledge of God then you are already defeated!


      • Apparently most of you have not read this article. Read it please and then comment – Sean is not saying that the Bible is not true, or that it isn’t inspired by God Almighty! He is speaking that the phrase “word of God” when used in the New Testament is not referring to the Scriptures but in fact referring to the gospel message. Please check out his thoughts again 🙂

  18. Posted by kathryn on October 20, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    i will not take someones word he exists
    hmm a court of law thats called heresay and that is a sustained objection
    word is not proof

    and christans talking for god
    defending god left and right
    its disgusting to me
    really is

    god speak for yourself
    because i will not tolerate the town of hootervill doing it anymore


  19. Kathryn, thanks for logging on. Why do you believe the devil exists?


  20. This is a great article. A lot of people end up worshiping the Bible rather than Christ.


  21. Posted by kathryn on February 21, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    worshipping christ????
    not kidding
    what the heck is worship??? singing songs?
    really i dont know
    but also so done with all this
    i dont care


  22. Posted by joe on February 21, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    This is the first time that I’ve seen the believer’s take on the bible not being the word of God (in a sensible manner). Also, I have come to a round-a-bout concept in my head. I have been researching the bible and it’s origins and this thought came to me: If the KJV is the only version to have it ‘correctly’ written, then why isn’t anyone else getting that?? The NIV has become the number one seller for the first time in history and people just accept that (even though there are some differences). That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms, as you know. Also, I thought, “If this IS the Word of God, then where is the respect?” We held our bibles up in songs and held it up in praise and studied it and (dare i say) worshipped it- only to be told that it’s only purpose is to show us how we fall short. Really?? What about all of the commands? Commandments? Lessons?

    All for not? All we have to do is believe?

    Am I missing the big picture?


  23. THE BIBLE IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD because if u start reading bible you will find..GOSPEL ACCORDING TO…..this is the clear evidence.BY SADEEQ ALHASAN MUBI NIGERIA


  24. Posted by RAJESH on June 4, 2011 at 7:59 am



  25. The Word of God, as I have come to understand it (from my own experiences talking with God, NOT from the Bible directly, but from my personal interpretation of memetic language construction), is whatever God tells me personally. That’s my word of God. And so far, though I could be considered heretic for this, God has told me many things that seem to disagree with certain authors of the Biblical books. Then again, God has shown me how they actually line up perfectly with the Bible also. The “Word of God” means anything spoken by God at any time, past, present or future. God doesn’t stop speaking. And the “scriptures”, means likewise, anything written down on behalf of God.


  26. I agree with you. It bothers me when Christians blithely refer to the Bible as “the Word of God,” when the Bible doesn’t use the phrase to describe itself.


  27. I enjoyed the essay “The Bible is NOT the Word of God!?“ I would like to offer my definition for “the Word of God” that I think the Bible does support.
    Word of God – All divine expression (the process of making known one’s thoughts or feelings)- whatsoever thought, utterance, or manifestation that emanates from God (the source).

    (This definition includes; Jesus Christ, God’s spoken words, God’s revealed thoughts (revelation), and prophecy.

    It does not include thoughts, utterances, or observations of men who may be devoted to God, regardless of the degree of their devotion.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: