Given that many conflate evangelicals and fundamentalists and there are significant overlaps, how have evangelical thinkers responded to James Barr's claim in his 1978 Fundamentalism book that: "For fundamentalists the Bible is more than the source of verity for their religion... It is part of the religion itself, indeed it is practically the centre of the religion, the essential nuclear point from which lines of light radiate into every particular aspect." These excerpts came from someone else's review of that book, instead of from an available copy such as on the Internet Archive. My question has been rephrased from my initial attempt, which was closed, and is edited here in hopes of avoiding the identified issues.

We read in John 1:1-2: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Clearly, John means The Son of God for “the Word who was with God”, as is evident from Vs 1:2. No other Evangelist uses the concept of "The Word was God "; neither do we hear Jesus referring to himself as "The Word". Of course, he speaks of the words from the mouth of God, as in Matthew 4:4: > But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Now, there is a difference between Word that proceeds from God' and Word that was God'. Is it possible that John sourced the concept from an ancient Jewish text, or from Greek philosophy? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, what was the source of the concept "The Word was God " that John the Evangelist introduced in Jn 1: 1?**

Everything I know about Christianity and Jesus is based on the "original" word of God. But I am having trouble understanding what is meant by "original". For example, Paul's source for his scripture is divine revelation only. So God's supernatural word was transmitted to Paul's brain and stored as a memory. Are those memories in Paul's brain the "original" word of God? Unfortunately the human brain can forget things, so perhaps it would be better to call the first words that Paul wrote down the "original" word of God. However it bothers me to move further from the source of the "original" word because Paul may not have transcribed it accurately. As a different example, Luke uses for his gospel Mark and the writings of Flavius Josephus as sources, and possibly another unknown source Q. Suppose that tomorrow we find the Q source, and it just so happens to be everything in Luke that is not contained in Mark or the writings of Flavius Josephus. In this case Luke is simply an anthology, so what would we say the "original" word of God is with respect to Luke?

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and **the Word was God** According to John 1:1, "The Word is god". We all know that the Bible is the word of God; therefore, is John 1:1 is telling us that the Bible is God? [Note: Please supply authentic and scholarly explanations from Protestant Christians]

John says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Why not "Word is God" - in present tense (because the scriptures are still valid)? It looks like that Word was God initially, but it got changed afterwards and now we cannot say Word is God. When did this change happen? What are reasons responsible for this change? How certain are we that this translation is correct and we are not having the past tense verb "was" due to mistranslation?

I once heard that the word of God is things themselves. But I can't find the source. If someone knows and can tell me, I would be very grateful! We know that in the Gospel of John, the Word of God is logos and the Word became flesh. We have also heard that many people in history say that they saw God in a vision and that God spoke directly to them, where the "word" was a voice. So, are there any arguments for and against the idea in the title, such as in the texts of the Bible, the Fathers, theologians and philosophers?

How is the phrase the "Word of God" understood (as applied to The Bible) in the Christian tradition? I assume different sects of Christianity answer this differently and I'm interested in hearing all answers, specifically with regard to the doctrine of the infallibility of The Bible. I'm familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16: > "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for > reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." Specifically, what is the definition of "Scripture" with respect to them being the "Word of God" and why are the letters of the New Testament considered scripture?

Genesis 3:8, depending on the translation, says one of two things with regards to what Adam and Eve heard: 1. They heard "the *voice* of the Lord" walking in the garden or 2. The sound of the Lord God as *he* was walking in the garden. It seems that in example one, the translations are intending to mean that the actual **voice** of the Lord God was *walking* in the garden, that is, had feet. In the second group, it seems they are stating simply that the Lord could be *heard* walking in the garden. Two very distinct interpretations. KJV === > “**And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking** in the garden in > the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the > presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.” Word English Bible ================== > **They heard the voice of Yahweh God walking** in the garden in the cool > of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence > of Yahweh God among the trees of the garden. ______________________________ Now, compare that to: NIV === > **Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God** as he was > walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the > LORD God among the trees of the garden. ESV === > **And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking** in the garden in the > cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the > presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. ______________________ Is it possible that some translations are referencing the Memra of the Lord (as seen in the Aramaic Targum)? http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm The Memra is known as the **voice** of the Lord, the glory of the Lord, the Angel of the Lord, etc. Some, in fact, connect the Memra with Jesus Christ . Jesus, of course, being called the logos or the word of God. So, are there any traditions, commentaries, church fathers, etc., that hold that, specifically, the individual walking in the garden in Genesis 3:8 was Jesus and not God the Father?

>The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.” 3 But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the Lord. (Jonah 1:1-3. NIV) It does not say in the text how the word was delivered to Jonah. Can someone explain to me how he received the word. Was it through a vision, dream or direcly from mouth of God? Are there any Christian Traditions that explore this subject.

I just read this post from a friend and I am a bit confused. According to him you don't **give your life to Christ**, you instead **receive Christ's life**. I want to deeply understand this. What is the difference? What, according to Bible, is supposed to be said?

Recently, I've been racked at the possible ways this belief might be construed when someone says it. I suspect that the primary Biblical basis for it is John 1, but as we know, there can be many interpretations for just a single verse, depending on your assumptions and starting points. So when a Christian says "Jesus is the Word", what is an overview of the various beliefs that this Christian may ascribe to? --- NOTE: I do not want to focus on general christological overviews. I realize this question is indeed a christology question, but I want to be sure that answers focus exclusively on what Christians mean when they say this phrase and how that relates to their theological perspective (which you don't have to explain, just name).

I'm curious as to know how parables can communicate the inspired word of God. Other literary forms in the bible such as myths and psalms are able to somehow communicate it but I want to know how parables can communicate it as well. I'd like to know specifically how the parable of the sower can communicate the inspired word of God.

In Apostolic Traditions , Hippolytus (starting at section 15 through section 20 (it is too much to copy and paste)) lines out the qualifications that a catechumen must meet for acceptance as such and a 3 year period that accepted catechumens must undergo prior to being baptized. Accepted catechumens will hear the word for 3 years so long as they faithfully retain accepted catechumen behavior. > Catechumens will **hear the word for three years.** Yet if someone is > earnest and perseveres well in the matter, it is not the time that is > judged, but the conduct. Having successfully completed the catechism and been presented as baptism candidates they are allowed to hear the Gospel. > When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be > examined, whether they have lived honorably while catechumens, whether > they honored the widows, whether they visited the sick, and whether > they have done every good work. If those who bring them forward bear > witness for them that they have done so, **then let them hear the > Gospel.** Paul seems to have presented the Gospel to Corinth as of primary importance. Hippolytus relates catechumens in 3rd Century Rome being required to "live right' and then, if it was proved that they have for three years, they could then hear the Gospel. My question is: Why would the methodology of presenting the Gospel have changed from Paul's 'presenting it as of primary importance' (see also Phillip and the Eunuch ) to that of 'prove you are worthy for 3 years' and then you can hear it? (A related question is: How could a 3 year instruction in the word be such that the Gospel is not yet heard? I understand this is probably unanswerable but I can't avoid it. Say the word and I will edit this out.)

So in John 1, it says that the Word was God, and I am curious as to whether the Word of God is considered part of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? Or is it distinct, and if so, why is it not included in part of the Trinity?

If yes, what is the reference for this? By this logic, any book before the Bible like the Torah is not the word of God. According to Islam, Torah is the book of prophet Moses and Bible is the book of prophet Jesus and Quran is the book of prophet Muhammad.

In some manuals I've read in the intro that it is official church doctrine, and in some books written by apostles (like Miracle of Forgiveness) it says it's not official church doctrine. Anyway, if a manual (not just any lds book) doesn't specifically say that, are all manuals considered 100% official church doctrine anyway? Seminary? Institute? Everything? And does that mean they're considered to be the words of the apostles, which would mean they are the words of Christ? E.g. I have heard some (Beginning Phase, Conclusion) of the history of making Preach My Gospel, the manual for missionary work. >President Boyd K. Packer said Preach My Gospel was “designed beyond the veil and put together here.” From that (along with other spiritual experiences) I can tell it's the word of God, but in the First Presidency Message it doesn't specifically say that. I'm a little lazy to be researching the making of every manual. Sorry, this is probably a dumb question that I could figure out by common sense, but it would be nice to have references to back it up. Aside, Maybe I have this question because I don't fully understand the difference between canonized scripture and the word of God in general (I haven't looked into that very deeply)?