Second Timothy 3:15-16 reads, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reprooof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
Should we include the Old Testament when accepting this Scripture? Or was Paul refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet cannonized? Was he thinking his writings were Scripture which would then inlcude his writing also?
: Reflecter Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:43:16
Second Timothy 3:15-16 reads, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reprooof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
Should we include the Old Testament when accepting this Scripture? Or was Paul refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet canonized? Was he thinking his writings were Scripture which would then include his writing also?
Hi Reflecter, we are to include the writing of a prophet if given to him by God. Jesus and the apostles quoted Old Testament scripture thus verifying them as truth.
Paul wrote in Galatians 1:11-12. But I certify you, brethren, that
the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest
speak I, not the Lord . .
1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet
I give my judgment . .
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married
I command, yet not I, but the Lord . .
Paul didn't guess whether his writings were the word of God. Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to
the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
There are also historical religious writings such as Machabees. There was not a prophet of God writing it. Another writer highly esteemed by some was Josephus, a Jewish historian which wrote of things concerning the New Testament also, but is not to be included as scripture.
: Wikipedia
Books, such as the Jewish-Christian Gospels, have been excluded from the canon altogether, but many disputed books considered non-canonical or even apocryphal by some are considered to be Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical or fully canonical by others.
My thoughts
larry2,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Josephus is a guy I read awhile back. There were four volumes in the set I had.
After reading your input I remembered 1 Thessalonians 2:13: It reads, "And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the Word of God's message, you accepted not as the word of men, but what it really is the Word of God, which also performes its work in you who believe."
: Reflecter Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 23:07:17
larry2,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Josephus is a guy I read awhile back. There were four volumes in the set I had.
After reading your input I remembered 1 Thessalonians 2:13: It reads, "And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the Word of God's message, you accepted not as the word of men, but what it really is the Word of God, which also performes its work in you who believe."
Amen and thanks; I have added that to my list now also. ::smile::
KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What inspired scripture do you have ?
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 12:47:49
KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What inspired scripture do you have ?
It depends on which KJV you're using. The more modern translation has inspired books in it but it's incomplete and therefore really should be called a Bible.
What exactly are you calling scripture ?
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 13:06:23
What exactly are you calling scripture ?
The same canon used in the west since the very beginning. How about you?
What inspired scripture do you have ?
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 13:23:10
What inspired scripture do you have ?
Did I not already answer the question properly?
No, be sincere, what exactly are you calling inspired scripture ?
#1. You cannot honestly state you have scripture if you believe only the original manuscripts were inspired. There are no original manuscripts. KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
#2. You cannot honestly say "the bible
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 13:31:04
#1. You cannot honestly state you have scripture if you believe only the original manuscripts were inspired. There are no original manuscripts. KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
#2. You cannot honestly say "the bible
I'm 17 yrs postdoctoral Ed.D. in higher education.
Be sincere and professional.
Last time, what inspired scripture do you have ?
What are you calling inspired scripture ?
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 13:45:52
I'm 17 yrs postdoctoral Ed.D. in higher education.
Be sincere and professional.
Last time, what inspired scripture do you have ?
What are you calling inspired scripture ?
If you are 17 yrs postdoctoral then you should know very well what I mean. You know I'm referring to the degradation of the canon due to the Reformation.
KJV Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
: Reflecter Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:43:16
Second Timothy 3:15-16 reads, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reprooof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
Should we include the Old Testament when accepting this Scripture? Or was Paul refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet cannonized? Was he thinking his writings were Scripture which would then inlcude his writing also?
What inspired scripture do you have ?
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 18:36:51
KJV Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
Typical evasion.
It would be simpler for those who openly reject God-breathed books of the ancient canon to renounce the title of Bible student.
KJV But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
What inspired scripture do you have ?
: makahiya Sun Apr 22, 2012 - 02:31:35
KJV But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
What inspired scripture do you have ?
The same canon as the early church you should try it.
--------------------------
Manuscripts and Bibles
--------------------------
Syriac Gospels
Origenis Hexaplorum
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Ambrosiano
Codex Alexandrianus
Codex Boernerianus
Codex Washingtonianus
N.T. Manuscripts 1st century - 2nd century
N.T. Manuscripts 3rd century - 4th century
N.T. Manuscripts 5th century - 10th century
N.T. Manuscripts 11th century - 18th century
1522 Erasmus Greek New Testament
1524 Hebrew Old Testament
1534 Tyndale Bible
1537 Matthew's Bible
1540 Coverdale Great Bible
1546 Stephanus Greek New Testament
1549 The Byble Cranmer's Prologue
1595 Bishop's Bible
1598 Beza's Greek New Testament
1599 Nuremberg Polyglot Bible Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, French, Italian,
Spanish, English, German, Danish, Bohemian, Polish
KJV 1611 Holy Bible
KJV 1613 Holy Bible
KJV 1728 Holy Bible
KJV 1764 Holy Bible
KJV 1769 Holy Bible
KJV 1773 Holy Bible
KJV 1842 Holy Bible
----------- E Sword
----------- Concordance to Bibles, Dictionaries, Commentaries 86 Bible Texts 15 Bible Commentaries 14 Word Dictionaries 58 Dispensational Charts 20 Maps
-------------- Power Bible
-------------- Concordance to Bibles, Dictionaries, Commentaries
16 Bible Texts 17 Bible Commentaries 3 Bible Dictionaries 8 Bible Topic Texts 2 Bible Lexicons
---------------------------------------------
80 Historical Authors - Theological Texts
470 Creation Science - Photographs and Research Papers
700 Biblical Studies - Diagrams and Research Papers
120 World Religions - Texts and Research Papers
Consider which books your Bible is missing that all Bibles in the history of the world had prior to the reformation.
And then consider why those books were taken out.
Concerning how Paul saw his on writings....
1 Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Exo 25 describes how God commanded Moses to fabricate the lamp of the tabernacle. It was made out of 39 + 27 parts for a total of 66 parts. The OT has 39 books and the NT has 27.
Ps 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
God knew 3,500 years ago, want the end product would look like. 66 books.
The Jews never considered the apocrypha inspired. They have errors. No Jewish Bible has them.
Peace
: Talking Donkey Wed Apr 25, 2012 - 16:39:58
Concerning how Paul saw his on writings....
1 Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Exo 25 describes how God commanded Moses to fabricate the lamp of the tabernacle. It was made out of 39 + 27 parts for a total of 66 parts. The OT has 39 books and the NT has 27.
Ps 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
God knew 3,500 years ago, want the end product would look like. 66 books.
The Jews never considered the apocrypha inspired. They have errors. No Jewish Bible has them.
Peace
False.
On the contrary more Jews used the Septugaint because most Jews since the time of Alexander the Great (before Christ was born) spoke Greek and not Hebrew.
Quit lying to yourself.
: LightHammer Thu Apr 26, 2012 - 17:35:04
: Talking Donkey Wed Apr 25, 2012 - 16:39:58
Concerning how Paul saw his on writings....
1 Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Exo 25 describes how God commanded Moses to fabricate the lamp of the tabernacle. It was made out of 39 + 27 parts for a total of 66 parts. The OT has 39 books and the NT has 27.
Ps 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
God knew 3,500 years ago, want the end product would look like. 66 books.
The Jews never considered the apocrypha inspired. They have errors. No Jewish Bible has them.
Peace
False.
On the contrary more Jews used the Septugaint because most Jews since the time of Alexander the Great (before Christ was born) spoke Greek and not Hebrew.
Quit lying to yourself.
Where did you get this info? What credibility does the author have?
: LightHammer Thu Apr 26, 2012 - 17:35:04
: Talking Donkey Wed Apr 25, 2012 - 16:39:58
The Jews never considered the apocrypha inspired. They have errors. No Jewish Bible has them.
On the contrary more Jews used the Septugaint because most Jews since the time of Alexander the Great (before Christ was born) spoke Greek and not Hebrew.
It is my understanding that the Greek Septuagint was widely used among the Jews at the time of Our Lord, and that nearly all the OT quotations found in the NT are verbatim from the Septuagint.
It is also my understanding that after ~33AD, the rabbis (Pharisees and Sadducees) nearly all rejected the Septuagint, calling it the "Christian Scriptures," and with it the Deuterocanonical Books.
There was some discussion regarding the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical Books in the early centuries of the Church, but this eventually ended until about 50 years before the Reformation.
The question was, what did Paul mean by "Scripture?"
If Paul wrote 2nd Timothy in the latter half of the first century, then the chances of his reference being to any NT writing is suspect. However, it is possible that he includes in the term some of the early writings of the church, but we likely don't have them and/or recognize them as Scripture today (e.g., the letter from Jerusalem to the Gentile converts as a stand alone document, or the Didache).
The Jews did not have a settled canon until mid or late 2nd century, and it is largely thought that they did eschew the LXX because the Christians used it (among other reasons). Prior to the 2nd century, neither the Jews nor Christians had a settled canon, and both referred to what are now considered by Protestants apocryphal documents on a regular basis. The Church Fathers refer to other Christian writings that did not survive the cononization process.
The development of cannon is essentially a defensive tactic rather than one born of altruistic good will. This is true for both canons. The Jews likely began looking at their written record following the repression of their revolt in 135, and the early church eventually felt the need to restrict her canon in response to various perceived herecies.
In the ancient world, "Scripture" did not equate to "canon," because the latter implies if not requires a set of recognized documents; usually a closed set. Simply, that did not exist in Paul's time - for either the Jewish or Christian communities.
Because Paul was a well trained Pharisee, there is no real reason that he would not have been referring to whatever documents the Jewish community used. It is likely that the Torah would have been included, but we don't know about the Writings and the Prophets precisely, nor how the apocrypha was categorized. Apparently the Qumran community thought that particular writings were worth keeping around.
A caveat: it does not necessarily follow that just because a document is referred to in the NT, or that Jewish or early Christian writers refer to it that it must be 'Scripture.' It may simply be a book worthy of reading and reflection; that is one that is useful for maturing the reader.
The simple answer to the OP is that we don't know precisely what Paul referred to was. We can take an educated guess, but we cannot definitively put a bow around it.
: HRoberson Thu Jul 19, 2012 - 22:43:52
The question was, what did Paul mean by "Scripture?"
The simple answer to the OP is that we don't know precisely what Paul referred to was. We can take an educated guess, but we cannot definitively put a bow around it.
Being that the risen Christ revealed the fulfilled gospel to Paul alone, is it possible concerning scripture we might apply something else uttered by Him in Revelation 1:8 to John? That "which is, and which was, and which is to come."
What part of Scripture is inspired: All of it from Genesis 1, to Revelation 22.
: samuel40 Thu Jul 19, 2012 - 23:26:59
What part of Scripture is inspired: All of it from Genesis 1, to Revelation 22.
::amen!::
2 Timothy 3:16All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.
: samuel40 Thu Jul 19, 2012 - 23:26:59
What part of Scripture is inspired: All of it from Genesis 1, to Revelation 22.
Whose canon are we going to use? How are we going to settle that our chosen canon is what Paul used? Since the NT writers appealed to the Greek version of the Old Testament, it may be that Paul considered the LXX as Scripture. However, the Jews of Paul's time do not seem to have had a settled canon.
In any event the LXX, if Paul used it, included some apocryphal writings and does not conform with the Protestant OT. Further, the Jews eventually dismissed the LXX as "Christian" and preferred the Masoretic Text. This of course was a development after the coming of Jesus and therefore doesn't really help us figure out which documents Paul would have used.
So when you say Genesis 1, to Revelation 22, which documents and forms specifically is it to which you refer?
: Reflecter Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:43:16
Second Timothy 3:15-16 reads, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reprooof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
Should we include the Old Testament when accepting this Scripture? Or was Paul refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet cannonized? Was he thinking his writings were Scripture which would then inlcude his writing also?
That comment referred to the Old Testament, not the new.
However, Paul, to Tim or Titus, Tim I think, commanded him to remember to teach the things he had spoken and Tim had heard, meaning it wasn't written down. So, Paul had words and thoughts he didn't write that were important to be learned.
And Paul told someone that he taught different things to the meat eaters than the milk eaters. His letters were written to the milk to help them become the meat. The meat didn't need letters, they "had arrived". (this is a good argument for something like "tradition" in the Xian faith, but it is a statement from scripture that seems to be in disagreement with the concept of sola scriptura."
: HRoberson Fri Jul 20, 2012 - 15:43:56
: samuel40 Thu Jul 19, 2012 - 23:26:59
What part of Scripture is inspired: All of it from Genesis 1, to Revelation 22.
Whose canon are we going to use? How are we going to settle that our chosen canon is what Paul used? Since the NT writers appealed to the Greek version of the Old Testament, it may be that Paul considered the LXX as Scripture. However, the Jews of Paul's time do not seem to have had a settled canon.
In any event the LXX, if Paul used it, included some apocryphal writings and does not conform with the Protestant OT. Further, the Jews eventually dismissed the LXX as "Christian" and preferred the Masoretic Text. This of course was a development after the coming of Jesus and therefore doesn't really help us figure out which documents Paul would have used.
So when you say Genesis 1, to Revelation 22, which documents and forms specifically is it to which you refer?
Think about this. The apocrypha and pseudipigrapha were quoted in the New Testament. There were examples there that conveyed examples of the MESSAGE. The words/interpretations aren't important, it's the message. The words are to help convey the message.
: Catalyst Sat Jul 21, 2012 - 15:33:38
: Reflecter Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:43:16
Second Timothy 3:15-16 reads, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reprooof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
Should we include the Old Testament when accepting this Scripture? Or was Paul refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet cannonized? Was he thinking his writings were Scripture which would then inlcude his writing also?
That comment referred to the Old Testament, not the new.
However, Paul, to Tim or Titus, Tim I think, commanded him to remember to teach the things he had spoken and Tim had heard, meaning it wasn't written down. So, Paul had words and thoughts he didn't write that were important to be learned.
And Paul told someone that he taught different things to the meat eaters than the milk eaters. His letters were written to the milk to help them become the meat. The meat didn't need letters, they "had arrived". (this is a good argument for something like "tradition" in the Xian faith, but it is a statement from scripture that seems to be in disagreement with the concept of sola scriptura."
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -2 Timothy 3:16
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. -2 Timothy 3:17
All means all.
Can any preacher be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" with only the OT?
: kjb1769 Sat Jul 21, 2012 - 17:13:42
: Catalyst Sat Jul 21, 2012 - 15:33:38
: Reflecter Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:43:16
Second Timothy 3:15-16 reads, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reprooof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
Should we include the Old Testament when accepting this Scripture? Or was Paul refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet cannonized? Was he thinking his writings were Scripture which would then inlcude his writing also?
That comment referred to the Old Testament, not the new.
However, Paul, to Tim or Titus, Tim I think, commanded him to remember to teach the things he had spoken and Tim had heard, meaning it wasn't written down. So, Paul had words and thoughts he didn't write that were important to be learned.
And Paul told someone that he taught different things to the meat eaters than the milk eaters. His letters were written to the milk to help them become the meat. The meat didn't need letters, they "had arrived". (this is a good argument for something like "tradition" in the Xian faith, but it is a statement from scripture that seems to be in disagreement with the concept of sola scriptura."
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -2 Timothy 3:16
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. -2 Timothy 3:17
All means all.
Can any preacher be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" with only the OT?
Would you mind listing the "all" to which Paul referred, and explain why you think your list is authoritative.
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
: LightHammer Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 12:58:01
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 12:47:49
KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What inspired scripture do you have ?
It depends on which KJV you're using. The more modern translation has inspired books in it but it's incomplete and therefore really should be called a Bible.
What praytell is incomplete about it?
You don't like that it doesn't have all the added verses the 1611 KJV has?
BTW, the 1611 KJV had the apocrypha, if it was so inspired and divinely designed by GOD, did God make any other mistakes MAN decided to fix? Man took the Apocrypha out.
Education is cheap with the NET, do some research, please. Perpetuating fantasies isn't beneficial to anyone.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
But not that which passed from the mouth of Paul?
Would you take the epistles out of the Bible then?
Or, do you leave them in?
If you leave them in, what about where Paul says to Timothy, or Titus somewhere in there, to remember the words HE SPOKE and pass them on and make sure they are passed on? OMG the very HOLY WORDS say there are HOLY WORDS that aren't written down.
Egads.
There's a lot of selective choosing of scripture in these conversations. There should be a rule that youmust be able to make both sides of the argument before you take a position...
: kjb1769 Sat Jul 21, 2012 - 17:13:42
Can any preacher be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" with only the OT?
Well, according to Ephesians chapter 4, yes. IT's works that brings you to complete knowledge of Christ, not the Bible. It's about how you live, not what you know.
You change that, you change Christ's purpose on earth.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
no; list the documents that constitute the "all."
::playingguitar::
: Reflecter Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:43:16
Second Timothy 3:15-16 reads, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reprooof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
Should we include the Old Testament when accepting this Scripture? Or was Paul refering to the Old Testament because the New Testament was not yet cannonized? Was he thinking his writings were Scripture which would then inlcude his writing also?
Why did Paul also tell Timothy to remember and teach the things he SPOKE OF which weren't written down?
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:23:10
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
no; list the documents that constitute the "all."
Maybe even those the NT authors quoted, that weren't in the book?
You mean, they were good enough to be used by the "holy" teachers, but not holy enough to be in the book? OMG!
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; -Acts 26:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. -2 Peter 3:16
If you want to think Paul's epistles arent the words of God that's your business.
If you want to think they aren't scripture be my guest.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:50:33
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; -Acts 26:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. -2 Peter 3:16
If you want to think Paul's epistles arent the words of God that's your business.
If you want to think they aren't scripture be my guest.
Why did you post this?
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:52:11
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:50:33
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; -Acts 26:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. -2 Peter 3:16
If you want to think Paul's epistles arent the words of God that's your business.
A response to post #37
If you want to think they aren't scripture be my guest.
Why did you post this?
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:23:10
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
no; list the documents that constitute the "all."
All 66 books in the KJB.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:57:39
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:23:10
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
no; list the documents that constitute the "all."
All 66 books in the KJB.
Well see, this is silly. When Paul wrote that all Scripture is inspired by God, Revelation hadn't been written and so Paul could not have been referring to it or any other writing that came after his statement.
On the other hand, since NT writers quoted (apparently) from the LXX, or probably referred to it's oral sayings rather than any written document, and we know that the Jewish canon hadn't been settled but apparently included parts if not all of the Apocrypha, it is likely that Paul didn't have in mind the KJB.
How do you know 2 Timothy was not the last book of the bible written?
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:57:39
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:23:10
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
no; list the documents that constitute the "all."
All 66 books in the KJB.
So, the first edition wasn't holy. I get it. How strong to claim it's NOW holy after man changed it, but not holy when it was first made.
Excellent.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:50:33
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; -Acts 26:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. -2 Peter 3:16
If you want to think Paul's epistles arent the words of God that's your business.
If you want to think they aren't scripture be my guest.
Nice, you didn't address my argument.
Your words, taken as you said them, would eliminate Paul's letters, now you claim to support them. I give up on you, you are babbling and spitting out cliched answers from other lemmings like a good parrot.
: Catalyst Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 15:07:56
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:57:39
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:23:10
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
no; list the documents that constitute the "all."
All 66 books in the KJB.
So, the first edition wasn't holy. I get it. How strong to claim it's NOW holy after man changed it, but not holy when it was first made.
Excellent.
If you say the first edition wasn't holy fine.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 15:06:29
How do you know 2 Timothy was not the last book of the bible written?
Because Paul wrote it, and He wasn't alive at the time that the Epistles of John were written, the Gospel of John, nor the Revelation of John.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 15:11:41
: Catalyst Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 15:07:56
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:57:39
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:23:10
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
no; list the documents that constitute the "all."
All 66 books in the KJB.
So, the first edition wasn't holy. I get it. How strong to claim it's NOW holy after man changed it, but not holy when it was first made.
Excellent.
If you say the first edition wasn't holy fine.
I didn't say it, you did. That was dishonest.
If you continue such things, you'll lose the interest of EVERYONE on here in regards to addressing you.
: Catalyst Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 15:12:56
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 15:06:29
How do you know 2 Timothy was not the last book of the bible written?
Because Paul wrote it, and He wasn't alive at the time that the Epistles of John were written, the Gospel of John, nor the Revelation of John.
So your saying Revelation & The Gospel of John are not scripture?
Are you saying you didn't graduate 4th grade? KJ?
Because anyone with a fourth grade education would realize how that question of yours was pointless. They weren't written when Paul wrote the Timothy letter. SO THEREFORE THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON HIS MIND WHEN HE MADE THE STATEMENT TO TIM!
You try to twist it into a personal insult/credibility issue claiming I deny them as Canon.
You have no intellectual conversation about you, do you.
If I can ignore your posts, I'm at that point now that I should.
All scripture is all 66 books found in the KJB is what I said then and what I say now if you have a different opinion fine.
Sorry that it was so complicated!
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 15:06:29
How do you know 2 Timothy was not the last book of the bible written?
A little bit of research will tell you. I would go into the discussion of dating various NT documents, but I suspect you're already familiar with at least the rough outline.
Back to the question of all scripture.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -2 Timothy 3:16
Let me plainly state my opinion all scripture means all 66 books of the KJB.
Is your opinion that only what was written prior to 2 Tim 3:16 scripture?
The question in the OP was not "what constitutes Scripture today," it was "to what was Paul referring when he referred to Scripture in his letter to Tim?"
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 18:49:06
The question in the OP was not "what constitutes Scripture today," it was "to what was Paul referring when he referred to Scripture in his letter to Tim?"
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
The epistles Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
It seems the question is what was the Holy Ghost reffering to?
Yes, paul was bragging about how holy he was in his letter, and peter as well, and paul new that john was going to write things 20 years after his death....
And the only time in today's english meanings you will find a greek word best translated as ghost, is when christ walked on the water and paul asked whuzzup w' dat!
But, you don't feel holy saying spirit do you?
You put more faith in the kj version, than you do the message of the bible. That's idolatry.
I'm just sayin'.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 19:12:15
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 18:49:06
The question in the OP was not "what constitutes Scripture today," it was "to what was Paul referring when he referred to Scripture in his letter to Tim?"
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
The epistles Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
It seems the question is what was the Holy Ghost reffering to?
: Catalyst Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:12:57
: LightHammer Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 12:58:01
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 12:47:49
KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What inspired scripture do you have ?
It depends on which KJV you're using. The more modern translation has inspired books in it but it's incomplete and therefore really should be called a Bible.
What praytell is incomplete about it?
You don't like that it doesn't have all the added verses the 1611 KJV has?
BTW, the 1611 KJV had the apocrypha, if it was so inspired and divinely designed by GOD, did God make any other mistakes MAN decided to fix? Man took the Apocrypha out.
Education is cheap with the NET, do some research, please. Perpetuating fantasies isn't beneficial to anyone.
1. What's incomplete about it? Oh I don't know mayb it's missing seven books how about that?
2. Yes man tool them out of YOUR canon. The vast majority of Christian s in the world still use them as the Early Church did so its not like your removal and refusal to accept the totality of God's scriptures amounts to much outside if your own communities.
3. What other "mistakes" did man decide to "fix" in scripture? Well that all depends in which Bible canon you're using. If you're carrying Martin Luther's German translation you will notice that he feed his own opinions to the Book of St. James. He was honest about it though. Wherever he inserts his own words his indicates it with a footnote the reads "Inserted by Martin Luther".
Again I don't know why we're pretending here. It seems like we're beating around the bush. The Reformers removed what you call the Apocrypha from the Bible because they did not like irrefutable doctrine of purgatory testified in it.
I mean it's not like they hid this. They were pretty honest about it so I don't see why we have to put on this dog and pony pseudo-scholasticism parade about it. There's no scholarship here. The Reformers didn't like the seven books and removed them. They tried to the same thing with several books of the New Testament as well but simply couldn't get enough support for it.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 19:12:15
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 18:49:06
The question in the OP was not "what constitutes Scripture today," it was "to what was Paul referring when he referred to Scripture in his letter to Tim?"
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
The epistles Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
It seems the question is what was the Holy Ghost reffering to?
No, you're not getting away with that dodge. Paul wrote it; was he in a trance or something? Paul had something in mind. What was it?
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 20:36:27
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 19:12:15
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 18:49:06
The question in the OP was not "what constitutes Scripture today," it was "to what was Paul referring when he referred to Scripture in his letter to Tim?"
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
The epistles Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
It seems the question is what was the Holy Ghost reffering to?
No, you're not getting away with that dodge. Paul wrote it; was he in a trance or something? Paul had something in mind. What was it?
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? -Numbers 22:28
Was Balaam's ass in a trance?
I don't know what Paul had in mind. But we know what he wrote.
And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak. -Numbers 22:38
I don't have Balaam's thought but he spoke what God put in his mouth.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 20:55:49
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 20:36:27
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 19:12:15
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 18:49:06
The question in the OP was not "what constitutes Scripture today," it was "to what was Paul referring when he referred to Scripture in his letter to Tim?"
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
The epistles Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
It seems the question is what was the Holy Ghost reffering to?
No, you're not getting away with that dodge. Paul wrote it; was he in a trance or something? Paul had something in mind. What was it?
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? -Numbers 22:28
Was Balaam's ass in a trance?
I don't know what Paul had in mind. But we know what he wrote.
And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak. -Numbers 22:38
I don't have Balaam's thought but he spoke what God put in his mouth.
Paul knew what he was writing. Unless you're going to assert that God revealed to Paul that Revelation was going to be written, Paul wasn't thinking about Revelation when he penned the letter to Timothy.
In any event, the OP has to do with that question, not what may or may not be Scripture today.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:57:39
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:23:10
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 13:01:07
The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -Matthew 4:4
no; list the documents that constitute the "all."
All 66 books in the KJB.
The 1611 version of the KJB had more than 66 books. You'd think you would have known that.
Oops, dude, I totally misread your post, but the syntax of it is what got me.
I'm on your side. I was going at a kj only person I thought. I'm not E.O. but I got your back on the hypocrisy going on in that chat.
But, in all fairness, I believe your faith would call them deutercanonical. Not str8 canonical.... but, unlike others, I'm ok with learning I'm wrong.
Accept my admittance of the misread, please.
: LightHammer Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 19:23:07
: Catalyst Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 14:12:57
: LightHammer Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 12:58:01
: makahiya Sat Apr 21, 2012 - 12:47:49
KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What inspired scripture do you have ?
It depends on which KJV you're using. The more modern translation has inspired books in it but it's incomplete and therefore really should be called a Bible.
What praytell is incomplete about it?
You don't like that it doesn't have all the added verses the 1611 KJV has?
BTW, the 1611 KJV had the apocrypha, if it was so inspired and divinely designed by GOD, did God make any other mistakes MAN decided to fix? Man took the Apocrypha out.
Education is cheap with the NET, do some research, please. Perpetuating fantasies isn't beneficial to anyone.
1. What's incomplete about it? Oh I don't know mayb it's missing seven books how about that?
2. Yes man tool them out of YOUR canon. The vast majority of Christian s in the world still use them as the Early Church did so its not like your removal and refusal to accept the totality of God's scriptures amounts to much outside if your own communities.
3. What other "mistakes" did man decide to "fix" in scripture? Well that all depends in which Bible canon you're using. If you're carrying Martin Luther's German translation you will notice that he feed his own opinions to the Book of St. James. He was honest about it though. Wherever he inserts his own words his indicates it with a footnote the reads "Inserted by Martin Luther".
Again I don't know why we're pretending here. It seems like we're beating around the bush. The Reformers removed what you call the Apocrypha from the Bible because they did not like irrefutable doctrine of purgatory testified in it.
I mean it's not like they hid this. They were pretty honest about it so I don't see why we have to put on this dog and pony pseudo-scholasticism parade about it. There's no scholarship here. The Reformers didn't like the seven books and removed them. They tried to the same thing with several books of the New Testament as well but simply couldn't get enough support for it.
Now you are plagiarizing Martin Luther.
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 20:55:49
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 20:36:27
: kjb1769 Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 19:12:15
: HRoberson Sun Jul 22, 2012 - 18:49:06
The question in the OP was not "what constitutes Scripture today," it was "to what was Paul referring when he referred to Scripture in his letter to Tim?"
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
The epistles Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
It seems the question is what was the Holy Ghost reffering to?
No, you're not getting away with that dodge. Paul wrote it; was he in a trance or something? Paul had something in mind. What was it?
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? -Numbers 22:28
Was Balaam's ass in a trance?
I don't know what Paul had in mind. But we know what he wrote.
And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak. -Numbers 22:38
I don't have Balaam's thought but he spoke what God put in his mouth.