You're assuming that "word" here means the bible, aren't you?  Even I know that "word" is a crummy translation of  "Logos".  The Logos - The Word of God, is Christ.
However, to keep tying this is going to get tedious, so I'm going to asssume when you say word you mean bible for the duration.  If I've got that wrong, we better start over.

There are two instances of the Greek logos being used in your statement here, both of which occur in scripture.  "Logos" standing alone is translated "word" and very accurately so.  You see, it is only when the direct article is included that it becomes "The Word."  The Word is Christ, I agree.  "word" is just that, "word."  What you have here is called biblical hermeneutic.  It is what is required for understanding the scriptures.  It requires one to view the text in light of its context as well as its original language.   Had he meant to say Christ, he would have.

My point was, that logos does not mean in Greek what word means in English, and it does not mean scripture.  Or rather, it need not.  To assume here that the author means scripture is just that, an assumption.

I'm almost speachless.
You think the character of God can be contained in a few thousand words on paper?  Because that's what you just said.

God can no more be contained in a book than He can in the entirety of His creation.  God can, however, be revealed as to His character, His will and His commands via the written word - the Bible.

God reveals part of himself in the Bible, sure. But that's not what he said, even if it's what he meant.

Quote:
God never changes. He is the same God of the "Old" Testament, as He is the "New". He is an angry God, He is a merciful God. He loves and He hates.
 
 
I'm not sure of the relevence of this.

He is pointing out what can be learned of God through His written revelation.  He is, btw, right!  He uses that biblical hermeneutic here again...

I'm not disputing the statement.  Just asking why it's there, but its not important.  Let's skip it and not get bogged down.

Quote:
His word is eternal,
 
 
No its not.  Christ is eternal.  Some of the bible has only been around for a little under 2000 years and even the oldest bits are only a few thousand years old.  Eternal doesn't just mean forward in time.

Christ is eternal!  Amen!  But so is the word of God:

Christ IS the word of God.  The Bible is not eternal.  The bible is not Christ. What does he mean by word here?  

Forever, O LORD, your word
   is firmly fixed in the heavens.

Your faithfulness endures to all generations;
   you have established the earth, and it stands fast.

Psalm 119:89-90

This passage does not refer to Christ, but to the written word of God.  

I disagree.

The word that Christ not only followed and fulfilled, but that Christ took literally and true.

Followed and fulfilled, ok.
Took as true, sure.  So do I.
Took literally - how can you know?  AFAIK everything he said is consistent with him having taken it literally.  It's also  consistent with him having not taken it literally.  

He did have a lot to say about following the spirit of the Law rather than the letter, and you could argue that amounts to taking the law in a non-literal manner.  I don't think he had a great deal to say about history, science or maths, as far as we know.

And this follows how from any of the above how exactly?

My view (and I don't pretend its necessarly the correct view, but I do maintain it's a perfectly reasonable and valid view given the information available):

The bible is all true.  Some of it is historically accurate.  Some of it is mathematically and/or scientifically accurate.  

All of it is true in some sense; for us to learn from. I think some guy called Paul said something to that effect.

To read all of the bible literally makes no sense to me.  If read in that way it contradicts itself & it contradicts what God reveals to us through his creation.  It makes God into a liar, and a poor one at that (he can't even get his story straight).  I don't buy that.

Some of the bible is clearly not literal - it virtually says so.  Do you believe the stories told in the parables actually happened?  I doubt it.  In which case you accept that some of the bible is not literally true, so we're just left to debate which bits.

To treat the bible as though it is God is heresy of the worst sort.  It tells us about God, it is a gift from God, but it is most definitely not God.

Here you jump to many conclusions:

1.  Some of it is historically accurate - Which parts are not and upon what do you draw these conclusions?

The beginning of Genesis, because they disagree with what God's creation tells us about itself for one.  I don't propose to get into a detailed argument on this here, as there is a separate place to debate that.
From Exodus onwards I would say its increasingly literal, but to be honest I don't know where it changes from mostly myth/allegory/whatever you like to call it, to history.   I don't believe that's half as important as what we can learn about our own relationship with God from it.

2.  Some of it is mathematically/scientifically accurate - Same question.

Beginning of Genesis for same reason.  Places that imply pi is 3.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure what to make of the sun standing still.  Nothing else springs to mind - I'll let you know if anything comes up that's relevent to the debate.

3.  To read all of the bible literally makes no sense to me - Of course not!  And why?  Because to do so without taking it into context would make it nonsensical.  There are points where Christ speaks in story form for the sake of the point.  Searching to discover if the prodigal son actually existed or not would be negating the point of the story.  However, to view parts that we do not understand as therefore allegorical in nature would also be nonsensical.  

You see, I just don't get you're point of view on this. Why can't some of the OT stories be like the parables?  Christ didn't actually say "this didn't actually happen - it's a story to teach you something", but you're quite happy to take that as read ,based on the format, and learn from the story.  Great.  Genesis Ch 1 also reads like a story to teach us something.  To put it another way, the whole context of those chapters is myth.  Why can't you accept that as a reasonable position, even if you disagree?

4.  To treat the bible as though it were God is heresy of the worst sort - And where exactly did anyone state this?

And I didn't say anyone had.  This was the bit of my post when I was stating my views, if you remember.
On the other hand, if the cap fits...

You will not find me tucked away in my room praying to my bible.  You will find me searching it and praying to God in light of it.

Great.  Me to.
We'll not right now, 'cause I'm playing on the computer  

 One more for thought here...The written word and the Living Word have a very close connection that warrants deep adoration.

This thread is, presumable, about discussing exactly that connection.  From my point of view, it is made hard by your insistance of refering to the bible as the written word [of God] because, although that's what you believe it to be, I believe that to be false and idolatory, but explaining this in every part of every reply would get boring for all of us, so you'll excuse me if I'm a bit sloppy and appear slighlty inconsistant in my replies.

Every believer I know loves the bible, even reveres the bible.  Yet I know of no believer who worships his bible, rather, they worship the God of the bible, as revealed by the bible, according to the bible.

I don't have images of you praying to a bible or anything, and I treat it with a great deal of reverence myself.  Other than that, see above.

Quoting myself:

To read all of the bible literally makes no sense to me.  If read in that way it contradicts itself & it contradicts what God reveals to us through his creation.  It makes God into a liar, and a poor one at that (he can't even get his story straight).  I don't buy that.

You didn't address the main part of this, perhaps you would care to.

Last question.  In (any of) the great stories of the Old Testament, which is the more important thing to learn?  The history, or what it teaches us about our own relationship with Him?

Is there a question  

[not made]

Jesus is Lord

Yep.

God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

What sort of heresy is this?

Nicene Creed:

... I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, only son of the Father, [...] begotten not made ,...

Are any of you guys actually thinking about what you are reading and writing?

Allinall,

The key verse for me is found in Hebrews 4:12 ."For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts, and intents of the heart.

You're assuming that "word" here means the bible, aren't you?  Even I know that "word" is a crummy translation of  "Logos".  The Logos - The Word of God, is Christ.
However, to keep tying this is going to get tedious, so I'm going to asssume when you say word you mean bible for the duration.  If I've got that wrong, we better start over.

God's Word contains His very character, His commands, past and present.

I'm almost speachless.
You think the character of God can be contained in a few thousand words on paper?  Because that's what you just said.

God never changes. He is the same God of the "Old" Testament, as He is the "New". He is an angry God, He is a merciful God. He loves and He hates.

I'm not sure of the relevence of this.

His word is eternal,

No its not.  Christ is eternal.  Some of the bible has only been around for a little under 2000 years and even the oldest bits are only a few thousand years old.  Eternal doesn't just mean forward in time.

and should be taken literally.

And this follows how from any of the above how exactly?

My view (and I don't pretend its necessarly the correct view, but I do maintain it's a perfectly reasonable and valid view given the information available):

The bible is all true.  Some of it is historically accurate.  Some of it is mathematically and/or scientifically accurate.  

All of it is true in some sense; for us to learn from. I think some guy called Paul said something to that effect.

To read all of the bible literally makes no sense to me.  If read in that way it contradicts itself & it contradicts what God reveals to us through his creation.  It makes God into a liar, and a poor one at that (he can't even get his story straight).  I don't buy that.

Some of the bible is clearly not literal - it virtually says so.  Do you believe the stories told in the parables actually happened?  I doubt it.  In which case you accept that some of the bible is not literally true, so we're just left to debate which bits.

To treat the bible as though it is God is heresy of the worst sort.  It tells us about God, it is a gift from God, but it is most definitely not God.