Fw: The Word of God and Scripture

From: E.D. Cabanne (watrlike@quiknet.com)
Date: Thu Mar 05 1998 - 10:34:30 EST


----------
> From: E.D. Cabanne <watrlike@quiknet.com>
> To: B-Greek <B-Greek@virginia.edu>
> Subject: Fw: The Word of God and Scripture
> Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 7:27 AM
>
>
>
> ----------
> > From: E.D. Cabanne <watrlike@quiknet.com>
> > To: Peter Phillips <p.m.phillips@champness.shef.ac.uk>
> > Subject: Re: The Word of God and Scripture
> > Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 1:02 AM
> >
> > Peter, it seems that I have made matters more confusing than I might
have
> > by using the word "equate". I am interested in the phrase "the word of
> > God". Does it, in any context where it occurs "refer" (I hope this is
> > better than equate) to scripture? Clayton has provided two fine
examples
> > that I had previously considered and shall take up with him if I have
> time. Unless
> > there are a whole lot more of such verses that I have missed, these
> measely two, support my
> > observation that this phrase, so frequent and powerfully indicative of
> > God's active expression, presence, being and doing, in the Older
> Testament,
>
> > is not so nearly Biblically or exegetically authorized to mean
> "scripture",
> > as it is supposed in common conservative Christian parlance. I want to
> > stress that I am speaking exegetically and calling for nuance and
> deference
> > to scripture's own use of the phrase, not trying to make or instigate a
> > theological discussion. If we were in a theological talk group I would
> > historically systematically and spiritually defend the appropriateness
of
> > using this phrase with regards to scripture, but since we are not,
> > exegetically speaking, I think we must face and accept the data. The
> facts
> > are (as best as I can see so far) that scripture itself does not (with
> one
> > or two debateable instances) refer to scripture as "the word of God".
But
> > again I could be wrong and would like to see where I am.
> > Just for fun, plug in "scripture" or "the Bible" wherever you find "the
> > word of God" and see what I mean. This is what goes on incessantly and
> > uncritically in popular Christian culture. We B-Greekers, it seems to
me
> > can provide some scriptural grounding here.
> > ----------
> > > From: Peter Phillips <p.m.phillips@champness.shef.ac.uk>
> > > To: clayton stirling bartholomew <c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net>;
> E.D.
> > Cabanne <watrlike@quiknet.com>
> > > Cc: B-Greek <B-Greek@virginia.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: The Word of God and Scripture
> > > Date: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 12:09 AM
> > >
> > > Where angels fear to tread....
> > >
> > > Isn't the way you have phrased the problem the issue? Why would the
> > greek
> > > text ever need to equate RHEMA/LOGOS QEOU with GRAFH? Clearly this
> would
> > > have been tautologous (the word of God is the word of God/scripture
is
> > > scripture) and hence redundant. IF RHEMA?LOGOS QEOU is understood as
> one
> > of
> > > God's ways to communicate and GRAFH is one of God's ways of
> communicating
> > > need we seek equation in any case.
> > >
> > > In the end the answer to the question is almost bound to be "no,
> but..."
> > > The devil lies in the but...
> > >
> > > Pete Phillips
> > > New Testament Lecturer/IT
> > > Cliff College, Calver, Sheffield
> > > Tel: 01246 582321 Fax: 01246 583739
> > > http://champness.shef.ac.uk/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:08 EDT