What Scripture is inspired?

[kjb1769]

The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  -Matthew 4:4

[Catalyst]

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.

[Catalyst]

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...

[Catalyst]

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.

[HRoberson]

The all is:
......every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  -Matthew 4:4

no; list the documents that constitute the "all."

[Catalyst]

 

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? 

[Catalyst]

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!

[kjb1769]

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.

[HRoberson]

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?

[kjb1769]

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?

[kjb1769]

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.

[HRoberson]

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.

[kjb1769]

How do you know 2 Timothy was not the last book of the bible written?

[Catalyst]

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.

[Catalyst]

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.

[kjb1769]

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.

[Catalyst]

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.

[Catalyst]

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.

[kjb1769]

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?

[Catalyst]

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.

[kjb1769]

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!

[HRoberson]

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.

[kjb1769]

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?

[HRoberson]

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?"

[kjb1769]

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]

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'.

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?

[LightHammer]

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.

 

[HRoberson]

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?

[kjb1769]

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.

[HRoberson]

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.

[HRoberson]

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.

[Catalyst]

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. 

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.

[Catalyst]

Now you are plagiarizing Martin Luther.

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.