Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[SabbathBlessings]

Let us not play silly games. You are a Seventh Day Adventist and you believe that her visions and theology is from God. She said that Sabbath is the most important and for us and so you believe so.

The Bible is interpreted in the "light" of the Ellen White writings, in your church. You are "sola scriptura" only when it suits your case.

Always seems to be the comeback when not having a biblical argument.

 

[trophy33]

Always seems to be the comeback when not having a biblical argument.

Biblical arguments against Ellen White's theology are quickly dismissed by you and the verses that are compatible with her theology are repeated by you again and again, even after they were already responded to.

So, the core of your theology is Ellen White, not the Bible. Why not to be honest? She decides which verses are relevant to you.

 

[GDL]

You are using an english word and then condemning english translations that don't use that english word to render the text. But are we supposed to think that there is no way in english that "transgression of the Law" is not within the term "lawlessness"? Is that your point? Or are you saying that a high-context sensitive language like Greek is surprisingly so context-insensitve in its definition for the term that it does not allow for what over a dozen translations claim regarding the "transgression of the Law" - and so the result is in your view that all of their scholarship gets it wrong? IT seems much more probable that the entire reason so many of them do argue for that rendering is that the Greek is more flexible than you suggest for that term.

The same book says "this IS the LOVE of God - that we KEEP His Commandments" context in 1 John 5:3 in the very same book by the very same Author as we see in 1 John 3:4. So in that context "lawlessness" in in 1 John 3:4 is the opposite of 1 John 5:3 "Keeping the Commandments of God".

So it is very very difficult to condemn those various translations that point to this negative act in 1 John 3:4 as not being transgression of the 1 John 5:3 Law that is in the context of the book itself. One may prefer this or that way to state it - but I don't see how we escape the violation of God's Law "The Commandments of God" in 1 John 3:4 given that John puts this contrast in the book itself.


It is part of the translation but as we know both Hebrew and Greek are high context languages and a single word does not have a single meaning regardless of context. The other issue here is that "transgression of the Law" is (even in english) a form of lawlessness and the context in the book itself makes it clear that the "Commandments of God" are the Law in question (about which one is being lawless)

Indeed 1 John 3:4 in contrast to 1 John 5:3 shows wrong action as contrasted to right action.

Here's my point, which I think I addressed earlier:

When a Greek word is translated different ways in different verses, it can be difficult to see the commonality that ties statements together. Maybe you've become proficient at seeing connections, but I can assure you that many cannot. Which is easier to spot - to tie together when reading?

KJV 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

• KJV Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

OR:

NKJ 1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

• NKJ Matthew 7:23 "And then I will declare to them,`I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

That's the simple one. The NKJ is more precise and consistent with "anomia" than the KJV is. Even then, we deal with those who think the KJV is inspired. Then there are similar issues with "transgression"

NKJ Luke 15:29 "So he answered and said to his father,`Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends.​

​

NKJ Luke 22:37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me:`And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end."​

​

NKJ Romans 2:27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?​

​

Those are 3 different words in Greek. The Luke 22:37 is actually "lawless [men]." I'm not looking so much at "forms" (as you say) as much as I'm looking at specific meanings and ties.​

​

In case we haven't noticed, we are unceasingly arguing among ourselves. IMO and experience part of these arguments cease when we understand our Text more precisely. Part of my time teaching was dealing with Christians using different translations, my showing them what the original says, watching them shake their heads in dismay of what their and other Bibles being used by the Christian sitting next to them said, and seeing something closer to harmony come about when we were all thinking like the Text - like our Lord - the Word of God.

It may be difficult for you to "condemn" different translations. I however work to recognize inaccuracies. I also know that some translations are done in committee structures. Then different groups come in and their works are compiled and expected to match somehow. I also know that translational work is still going on and refinements are still being done. I also know that there are groups scouring the globe for additional old manuscripts they may find. There are still students of Textual Criticism working to make certain our Text is as pure as it can be. There are also new English translations periodically introduced for whatever purposes men may have and other men reviewing and issuing various degrees of critique to condemnation. There are scholars constantly doing what we are doing on this forum - debating, arguing, critiquing, etc., the Text - but at different levels of proficiency than many of us here.

This is not a finished project no matter how many of us want to rest in our favorite reader.

Another point or question: You said "The same book says "this IS the LOVE of God - that we KEEP His Commandments"' What does "of" mean here? Could it be translated more precisely?

Another question: Did you respond to this post to you? It would be interesting to continue to pursue the days, months, seasons, years issue.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Biblical arguments against Ellen White's theology are quickly dismissed by you and the verses that are compatible with her theology are repeated by you again and again, even after they were already responded to.

So, the core of your theology is Ellen White, not the Bible. Why not to be honest? She decides which verses are relevant to you.

These are your opinions not founded on truth.

Majority of the 22 million people who became Adventists did so without ever reading an EGW book or even knowing about her, but followed what the scripture stated. Once accepting biblical Truth are able to accept other truths.

As an example here are a couple personal testimonials on how two popular pastors became Adventist christians. One a son of a billionaire tycoon who grew up atheist and lived in a cave where someone left the Bible and he started reading, the other a Jamaican rapper who was a signed artists being raised with no religion who started studying the Bible….both became Adventists just by reading the Bible. There are lots of stories like this…

 

[GDL]

The we would include Paul and his audience. Which would be all of us actually since the heirship context starts in chapter 3 where it states we are all one in Christ and heirs according to the promise.


Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Please go to the end of this post and read my last & highlighted thought. It might save us some time & work. If you have a mind & time to answer the following, that would be great. I value your thoughts. But we should probably narrow this down.

So, Paul under the OC & Book of the Law (BoL) had been a nepios (Gal4:1) in bondage under the basic principles (as you define stoicheia below) of the world (Gal4:3).

I assume you see that stoicheia in Gal4:3 is consistent with Gal4:9.

So, did the BoL contain - at least in part - stoicheia of the world?

Lol Galatians says we are all Israel in chapter 6. The law is for any who would come to God. We must know why we need Him to need Him and for it to make any sense.

The BoL is for anyone who would come to God?

Is the law synonymous with the BoL?

Has the BoL been revised in any way?

Basic principles or components.

Agreed. Like the A, B, C's as we might say to English speaking children.

Yes the law being the schoolmaster. And Being under tutors and governors being stated in relation to being under the law in verse 5.

Thanks.

The 2nd person plural continues in verse 8 but starts in verse 6 and is said in context to verse 5's statement of we receiving the adoption of sons. Which is being stated in the 1st person plural. But would include the 2nd person plural in the proceeding clause. The contextual flow remains unbroken. Because as was stated the context of chapter 4 starts in the latter end of three and verse 4:5 is being said in relation to was previously stated.

So, it seems "we" may not just be Jews, correct?

I know you may be working on this, but who was "under law"? BTW, I'm fine with working this out by any mutual means.

Which would include the ten since it is included in said book

Here's your original statement:

We were never to be people of the Book, but of His Spirit through faith.

Here's my assumption and original question:

I assume you mean Book of the Law and more succinctly the Law of Moses.

So, we were never meant to be people of the Book, meaning the Book of the Law, meaning the Law of Moses that would include the ten (10 C) - we were meant to be people of His Spirit through faith.

"The Law on parchment and tables of stone tell us what sin is and show sound doctrine as Paul through Christ show us explicitly in Timothy. The law, His Word in our hearts through His Spirit changes us so that we don't do the things that we would having crucified the flesh and the affections thereof, being of and in Christ."

So, the entire [Book of] The Law still teaches us what sin is and shows us sound doctrine per 2Tim3:16.

Back to my question above; does the BoL contain any stoicheia that sons and heirs no longer need be concerned with?

What precisely is being written on our hearts?

When used lawfully.

Did God institute any laws, statutes, etc., through Moses besides those He had given to Abraham and those before Moses?

No one can

Here was my question:

Sticking with Gal4, did Paul know God without His Spirit?

If no one can know God without His Spirit, then what is going on here:

• NKJ Rom1:19-21 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.... 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;... 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

The big question. What has God placed in our hearts. Himself, for in Him we live, move and have our being. It is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure.

OK, but very general and doesn't detail His Law put in our minds and written on our hearts.

What laws though? God answers that in Deut. 30. The commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law. His very Word is in our hearts and in our mouths and in our hands (LXX) that we do it.

Take note the judgements, that which was instituted because of sin is not mentioned.

Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

But, again, all His commandments in the BoL, or did the BoL contain some stoicheia to which the children of Israel had been enslaved?

If we take this back to what IMO remains unresolved that's pertinent to this thread, what is the tie (assuming there is one) between stoicheia (elements, basic components or principles) (Gal4:3, Gal4:9) & Paul's concern that these Galatian Christians desired to
Gal4:10-11 "You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain."???

As I understand from @BobRyan, these are simply pagan days per Gal4:8-9.

There's been much discussion in this thread re: the vast majority of Christianity believing in the continuing validity of the 10C which includes variations about the "Lord's Day" - meaning Shabbat/the weekly Sabbath. Some of the input from RCC writings have been interesting. This democratic concept of numbers of people is used to tell others who may not agree with these numbers, that they thus cannot be correct. But there is a group who does not agree with the numbers whether RCC, Protestants, or any other denomination or theological camp. If Gal4 can resolve any of this, let's pick it apart.

IMO Gal4 days & months & seasons & years is still open to discussion. Your thoughts? (Maybe it would be easier to set most of the above aside and just go back to this Gal4 issue - - see the just previous 4 paragraphs of this last section of this post for context - I'll go back to the beginning and flag this).

 

[expos4ever]

The text Below was posted in the post you responded to. If we are disobedient, ungodly sinners and following unsound doctrine then the law is made for us,

1Tim 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
1Tim 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Tim 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

The writer clearly tells us who the law is for, and it is certainly not the believer. Are actual believers murderers? Sexually immorral? Rebellious? I would certainly hope not.

In any event, I would concede that Paul appears to be saying that the Law is indeed still in force in the sense that it can exercize some control over non-believers. But we know from this text, if not others, that Paul considers the Law to be "retired" for those who have the Spirit, that is, believers:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

What is your response to these words from Paul. Are you, like others, going to say that being "released from the Law" means "being released only from the consequences of the law, but still obliged to fully follow it"? I suggest that no one talks that way. And what about being told we "we no longer serve the letter of the law". Are you, like others seemingly, going to change this to "we are no longer condemned by the letter of the law"?

If, repeat if, this is your ways of handlings Romans 7:6 - changing the fundamental meanings of concepts like "being released from a law" and "serving according to a law - then I suggest you are pushing things too far.

And if this is not the way you would incorporate Romans 7:6 into you view, how would you?

I agree that the 1 Timothy text does indeed say the law is indeed useful in controlling non-believers. But that does not mean it applies to believers. And I see no way to read Romans 7:6 and come away believing we are still supposed to follow the Law. Unless, of course, you are willing to redefine words.

And what about what Paul goes on to say about the Law in Romans 7:

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [m]coveting of every kind; for apart [n]from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart [o]from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was [p]to result in life, proved [q]to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me

Yes, "sin" is the real bad guy here, but Paul clearly sees the law as being an enabler in bringing about, yes, death.

And what about this from 2 Cor 3:

who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came [c]with glory

How can Paul be misunderstood here - the law brings death.

 

[expos4ever]

Here it is indicatively stated outright.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

In context, despite appearances from this one verse, it is really clear that the law is for Jews only. How do you explain this, if Paul believes that Gentiles are under the law?

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

No one would add verse 29 if they believed that all people are under the Law.

 

[Leaf473]

read the post please. If you have a way to spin the statement in Mark 7 as Christ in full agreement with their tradition -- show us how that bit of gymnastics is done.

I don't think he wasn't full agreement with their tradition. He agreed with them on some things, disagreed on others.

Here, for example, he is agreeing with them on loving your neighbor, but disagreeing on hate your enemy.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 5:43 - New American Standard Bible

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Leaf473]

Here it is "again" waiting for you to show us "Jesus observed the the tradition in place at the time." in the case of Mark 7:6-13 instead of side stepping it each time it comes up.

Jesus did not endorse all the traditions in place at the time. Neither did he do away with all traditions in place at the time.

Here Jesus tells a man to make an animal sacrifice. But in order to do that, the man is going to have to submit to some degree to the traditions in place around the temple.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 8:4 - New American Standard Bible

And Jesus *said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

www.biblegateway.com

But here he is overturning the tables, very possibly some of the same tables that the cleansed leper had to buy the animal sacrifice at

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 21:12 - New American Standard Bible

Cleansing the Temple - And Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying on the temple grounds, and He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[GDL]

No one would add verse 29 if they believed that all people are under the Law

No one except Paul possibly, until one can prove conclusively that Paul in no sense or way considers all men to be under law.

Have you researched this phrase "under law" or other similar phrases to see how Paul uses it? Have you considered the 2 chapters of Romans that set the context for this verse? Or are you being evasive?

Maybe @HIM will answer in a way that we can all sink our teeth into.

 

[trophy33]

These are your opinions not founded on truth.

Majority of the 22 million people who became Adventists did so without ever reading an EGW book or even knowing about her, but followed what the scripture stated. Once accepting biblical Truth are able to accept other truths.

As an example here are a couple personal testimonials on how two popular pastors became Adventist christians. One a son of a billionaire tycoon who grew up atheist and lived in a cave where someone left the Bible and he started reading, the other a Jamaican rapper who was a signed artists being raised with no religion who started studying the Bible….both became Adventists just by reading the Bible. There are lots of stories like this…

Not relevant to my point that your view of the Bible is determined by the Ellen White teachings. You repeat the verses that suits her theology and ignore the ones that do not.

When it suits your purpose, you dismiss Christian creeds and confessions originated in deep theological debates or ancient writings of first Christians as "traditions of men", but you accept Ellen White teachings from the 19th century as inspired.

So, its kind of funny when you pretend to not care about the opinions of men. You just do not care about opinions of men you disagree with, which is fine (as I do not care about opinions of a late American so called prophetess), but let us be honest. If you read her works and believe them to be even inspired by God, she, of course, shapes your view of the Bible, significantly.

 

[GDL]

RE: Rom3:28-29:

• Firstly, we seem to be assuming that "works of law" stated in Rom3:28 equates to being "under law" which terminology is not used in Rom3:28-29.

Here are the verses in which Paul says "works of law":

NKJ Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
NKJ Rom. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds works of the law.
NKJ Rom. 9:32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.
NKJ Gal. 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
NKJ Gal. 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
NKJ Gal. 3:5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?--
NKJ Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

Here are the verses where Paul says "under law":

NKJ Rom. 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
NKJ Rom. 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
NKJ 1 Cor. 9:20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
NKJ Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
NKJ Gal. 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
NKJ Gal. 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
NKJ Gal. 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
NKJ Gal. 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

And 1 more where James says "under the law:"

NKJ Jas. 2:9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by (under) the law as transgressors.

So, what are the Biblical facts re; what "works of law" and being "under law" actually mean?

 

[Leaf473]

Here it is "again" waiting for you to show us "Jesus observed the the tradition in place at the time." in the case of Mark 7:6-13 instead of side stepping it each time it comes up.

I'm glad you did ask again, I think I can make my answer more explicit:

Jesus opposed their tradition about Corban,

but he kept their tradition about what was scripture. (Or at least we don't have any record of him coming up with his own.)

So Jesus didn't oppose all traditions.

 

[Leaf473]

Here it is "again" waiting for you to show us "Jesus observed the the tradition in place at the time." in the case of Mark 7:6-13 instead of side stepping it each time it comes up.

I also thought of this other example:

From what I've heard, it looks like Jesus is keeping the feast that we today call Hanukkah.

Bible Gateway passage: John 10:22-23 - New American Standard Bible

Jesus Asserts His Deity - At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple area, in the portico of Solomon.

www.biblegateway.com

It's not a feast in the scriptures. Well, unless you're going to include Maccabees as scripture.

So basically, Jesus is doing a religious tradition not found in the scriptures.

 

[trophy33]

I also thought of this other example:

From what I've heard, it looks like Jesus is keeping the feast that we today call Hanukkah.

Bible Gateway passage: John 10:22-23 - New American Standard Bible

Jesus Asserts His Deity - At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple area, in the portico of Solomon.

www.biblegateway.com

It's not a feast in the scriptures. Well, unless you're going to include Maccabees as scripture.

So basically, Jesus is doing a religious tradition not found in the scriptures.

Maccabees, Sirach and other books were considered Scriptures by many protestants and are still considered to be so by the RCC and EO, I think.

If I remember correctly, Calvin quotes them as Scriptures and also some other reformation authors not so known in the English world, like J.A. Comenius (Unitas Fratrum).

 

[Leaf473]

Fine - take an actual look at Mark 7 and shows us what Christ's argument is in vs 7-13 and how it supposedly fits your claim made earlier.

Do you mean this claim?

think Jesus observed what the scribes and Pharisees taught regarding what was scripture. That is to say, the tradition in place at the time.

Sure! But we'll want to back up just a hair.

Jesus quotes from Isaiah, validating the tradition of the Pharisees that it is scripture:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 7:6 - New American Standard Bible

But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

www.biblegateway.com

Jesus and the Pharisees shared the same tradition when it comes to what is scripture. I'm calling that a tradition because it doesn't say anywhere in the scriptures which books are scripture.

In verses 7 to 13, Jesus criticizes their tradition regarding Corban. He criticizes this practice because it invalidates the word of God.

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 7:13 - New American Standard Bible

thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

www.biblegateway.com

Does that answer your question?

 

[Leaf473]

Yes, there is one group who chooses to believe the scripture references by thus saith the Lord on the seventh day Sabbath God’s holy day and one of God’s commandments Exodus 20:10 Isaiah 58:13 Exodus 20:8-11 and another group who chooses to believe something not written in the Bible. For me, I am in the group who believes thus saith the Lord, instead of following traditions of man.

The phrase "the Lord's day" as it's used in Revelation occurs only one place in the Bible. Maybe it means the same thing as those other passages, maybe not.

 

[Leaf473]

If you believe man established scripture instead of God 2 Tim 3:16 that is another choice too.

I believe God established scripture. And the people that he used to do that worshiped primarily on the first day.

This is where it gets interesting:
Jesus says of the people on the broad path that he never knew them.

But he was directing the people that he used to establish the scriptures, and that sounds to me like he knew them.

 

[GDL]

I believe God established scripture. And the people that he used to do that worshiped primarily on the first day.

This is where it gets interesting:
Jesus says of the people on the broad path that he never knew them.

But he was directing the people that he used to establish the scriptures, and that sounds to me like he knew them.

Not comparing, mind you, just making the point that God works with and through many means Num22:28-30

 

[Leaf473]

If you believe man established scripture instead of God 2 Tim 3:16 that is another choice too.

Oh, I believe God established scripture. He used humans in the process of establishing it, just as he used humans in the process of writing it.

Paul wrote a letter to Laodicea. Either that letter didn't get established as scripture, or we know it by a different name.

Bible Gateway passage: Colossians 4:16 - New American Standard Bible

When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part, read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

www.biblegateway.com