Rameus

Did a Christian just accuse someone else of using circular logic? That's rich.

Mr. Bible_Thumper, I hate to break this to you but Christianity is a Circular Carnival of Insanity. You probably should either embrace the madness and enjoy the ride, or get off slowly and hope you don't become too ill from dizziness.

Rameus

Toto

Mod note:

Now that this thread has risen up the ladder, so to speak, please stick to the topic and avoid having this degenerate into an exchange of insults and overgeneralizations about the opposition.

And in the interest of not repeating old material, here are some previous threads on this topic:

Accurate 2 Timothy 3:16 translation...

Bible the word of God?

PhilVaz

I would add that "the Bible" (meaning the collection of the 66 books of Protestant Bibles, or the 73 of Catholic Bibles or others) cannot claim to be the "word of God" since the canon was established much later (the OT with the NT around the end of the 4th century AD). The "canon" itself is not the "word of God" but the word of the Church.

So it is an anachronism when someone claims 2 Tim 3:16 by "all Scripture is inspired" means the 66 or 73 books of the Bible. It at least includes the "Holy Scriptures" (or "sacred writings") that Timothy has "known from childhood" (2 Tim 3:14-15), which would be the OT canon (whatever that was), but no book or letter of the NT was penned at that point.

Also, from an orthodox Catholic perspective, the Bible doesn't claim to be the "word of God" alone, since the apostles or prophets own teachings, whether or not they were ever written down, were considered "inspired" or "God-breathed" or "word of God" (examples of this: 1 Cor 2:4,7,13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; and the various "thus saith the Lords" of the OT prophets). The oral or handed down teachings or traditions of the prophets / apostles were also "the word of the Lord" or "word of God" (see 2 Thess 2:15, "by word or our epistle"; and 2 Chron 29:25, "the word of the Lord through His prophets" was passed on orally for hundreds of years, etc). It was not the written text alone that was "inspired by God."

And apart from the book of Revelation, none of the NT books claim to be "inspired by God" or "God-breathed" or "the word of God" -- the Church was the authority that put those books together into a "canon" declaring them "from God." That leads to the whole "sola scriptura" debate between Protestants and Catholics (and Orthodox who agree with Catholics on the point).

Phil P

Rameus

I agree with Thumped_In_The_Head that II Timothy is pretty clear:

However what I find truly fascinating is a quote from Ecclesiastes that informs us that God's will is to have an end to all the book writing.

Bible_Thumped, arguably Ecclesiastes XII:11-13 calls for an end to the production of books of scripture (read entire chapter for context). If I am not mistaken II Timothy was clearly written after Ecclesiastes, correct? So does that mean that the verse implying that scripture is divinely inspired is invalidated because it was written after God informed the Preacher in Ecclesiastes that he wanted no more books of scripture to be written? Does this invalidate the entire New Testament as being legitimate scripture?

Obviously Bible_Thumped is going to disagree and dazzle us with his apologetic confetti. Bring me into your asylum Mr. Bible_Thumped, demonstrate how I am clearly using poor atheist reasoning or reading comprehension skills.

Rameus

Peter Kirby

As I understand it, some Protestants also disavow the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine. For example, Anglicans and Episcopalians hold to "scripture, tradition, and reason."

best,
Peter Kirby

PhilVaz

Peter K << some Protestants also disavow the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine. For example, Anglicans and Episcopalians hold to "scripture, tradition, and reason." >>

That's true, and some Protestants put more emphasis on tradition or the authority of the Church. Baptists and independent fundies tend to eschew creeds and "confessions of faith" altogether, while most Lutherans, Anglicans, and some Reformed have their own creeds or confessions or "traditions" they consider authoritative. Sorry, I wasn't trying to overgeneralize.

But the claim that 2 Tim 3:16 can be used to show the "Bible is the word of God" is indeed circular (as previous posters have said). First, there are translation issues and questions about just what "God-breathed" means; second, "the Scriptures" Paul refers to wouldn't include the NT since none of that was penned at that point; third, both the written and the oral are equally the "word of God" or "word of the Lord" according to Scripture itself (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Chron 29:25 are prominent examples from the OT and NT text).

Phil P

Jehanne

Paul almost certainly did not write 2 Timothy:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html

Even according to Catholic scholars:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/intro.htm

Vivisector

The Christians have more Kung Fu than 2 Tim 3:16. They also have 2 Peter 3:16, reading (NIV) thusly:

He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction.

The Christian position is that, the author of 2 Peter (who would be none other than Cephas/Simon Peter, the fisherman) was aware of more than one of Paul's letters, if not the entire Pauline corpus, and that he considered Paul's letters to be Scripture.

Christians also point to 1 Tim 5:18 as evidence for the scriptural status of NT writings. 1 Tim 5:18 reads,

For the Scripture says,"Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and, "The worker deserves his wages."

The first quotation is from Deuteronomy, but the second is from Luke 10:7. The Christian position is that, the author of 1 Tim (Paul the apostle, of course) considered GoL to be Scripture.

Just wanted to make sure we didn't become fixated on 2 Tim 3:16 since any well-informed Christian will have these additional verses in his/her kit bag.

V.

Jehanne

Peter, of course, did not write 2 Peter (or 1 Peter)! I would like to emphasize this point again, just in case any lurking Christians may have missed this most fundamental point.

Vivisector

To those holding a relatively conservative view of inspiration and a closed canon, authorship of 1 and 2 Tim and 1 and 2 Peter is a critical consideration, and traditional authorship must be defended beyond any point of credibility. If one gives ground on 2 Peter, one gives ground on the idea that Paul's letters were collected and accorded scriptural status at an early date (within Paul's lifetime). Giving ground on 1 Tim is to discard evidence for early authorship and quick scriptural status of Luke. So their views on authorship are driven by what they have already concluded.

It's interesting that, considering all relevant passages, the inspired corpus would contain, at most, the 13 letters written by / attributed to Paul and the Gospel of Luke.

Quote of the Day: Gregory of Nazianzus, clarifying the concept of the Trinity.

No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me.

Say what?