Originally posted by cougan
So you dont think 2 Tim 3:16-17 is refering to the the NT as well.
Nope.
Now I would completely agree with you that verse 15 is talking only about the OT but in these verses 16-17 it would include the NT because you will notice that all or every scripture is inspired by God.
Look up the word "graphe" It's translated 51 times in the Bible. Everyone of them is referring to what we would now consider the OT.
You must also note that 2 Tim was written at a late date and most of the NT had already been written.
Do you understand how we came to understand which books were Scripture and which ones weren't? It wasn't until the middle of the 3rd century that the NT canon was accepted.
The key here is the word scripture which simply means a writing. The writing of the Old and New Testameant are inspired of God. Haveing both the Old and New Testament we have the complete word of God that througly furnishes us. The word we have in the NT was ispired by God and we can see that from passages such as.
1 Corinthians 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Yes!!!! The Holy Spirit can teach us! It can compare spiritual things with spiritual! A man led by the Spirit to play his horn on Sunday morning is in complete accordance with the Word!!!! Thanks so much! (Oh, and there's nothing about the Bible here - merely the leading of the Spirit)
Gal 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught <I>it, </I>but <I>it came </I>through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
And this'll freak you out, cougan... When Paul preached these things, there were, more than likely, no Scripture as such. The message was directly revealed by Jesus Christ - this was given to him on the road to Damascus - that was the gospel!
2 Peter 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke <I>as they were </I>moved by the Holy Spirit.
And this speaks merely of the prophets, and has nothing to say about those parts of the Bible such as I and II Samuel, which was not compiled by a prophet, but a scribe (though, I believe directly under the influence of God - II Tim. 3:16)
So you see Scott the NT is scripture that is inspiried by God.
In no way does these passages prove anything about the NT! I see where you get much of your faulty theology here!
This is some of the most illogical thinking I think I have ever seen. So you want to try and use the fact that not all the things that Jesus did that is every detail that this somehow implies that we dont have everthing we need to know with what we do have recorded now in our bibles. This is nonsense.
That's where the Spirit comes in. See your above verse that you posted!
The bible clearly tells us in 2 Tim 3:16-17 that the inspired word that we do have throughly furnishish us.
which refers merely to the OT.
If it were necessary for us to know those other things that were not recorded that is something that would add something to the already written word that we needed to know it would of been recorded for us. In fact note the following.
Everything for salvation is found in the word of God. There are many other issues that are not found in the Scripture, which is why the Spirit is necessary for us as believers.
f. Not even angels or modern apostles have anything new to add - Ga 1:8,9 See Also Rev 22:18 Det 4:2;12:32
Let's address this one, shall we?
As far as the Galatians verse, you are not understanding the meaning of gospel. It means "good news," which is what hsa the power to lead a person to salvation. It does NOT mean one of the books of the BIble.
For the Revelations passage - John is talking specifically about the book he was writing about the time. To say it applies to all books is to ADD something to it that is not there.
The passages in Deuteronomy are speaking about the specific words of the Lord. If we are to take this literally, than the other 31 books written after Deuteronomy should not be considered inspired by God. 0
Just for good measure I want to add the follow verses.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
And gospel, again, means good news, not a book of the Bible, or the Bible itself.
I am sorry Scott but I think I will take the word of God for what it says. I know without doubt that we have all we need to know to be saved and to live a christian life and do those things that God would have us to do with the written inspired word that we have. If we can add to the word of God or it is not fully furnishing us then the bible is a lie as it would contridict itself what is plainly stated in 2 Tim 3:16-17
See above. You are misunderstanding what the Bible says quite blatantly, and are reading into the words what you want them to say!
I did not just juse the Noah story. I used it as a bibical example to help explain the difference between an addition and an aid. What better example to use to explain something than using one of the many good recorded events from the bibical past.
Because it doesn't fit. I could use David's story to illustrate how dancing naked in the streets is a good thing, but that doesn't make it revelant to the discussion.
I don't have to refute them. I took a great deal of time showing how the word psallo had different meanings during different time periods. If you look at these Greek Scholars they will just give a defination of the word and most of the time will not break down the meaning of the word in differing time periods. Did you have any thing to say about this? No
Because you haven't shown this to be true. In fact, it is not true.
Did you have anything to say about the fact that not 1 single time is psallo used as to play an insturment in any of the greek text throghout the NT time?
Check out Thayers, which directly refutes this, by showing that the Septuagint uses psallo to refer to "sing to the music of the harp" along with various other contemporary sources.
Did you once try and bring proof against the numerous encyclopedias and musical historians and all that I have brought forward that show that musical instruments were not used in worship in the 1st century and in fact they were not even introduced until the 6th century.
I showed other sources that disagreed, which you did not argue.
I am not lacking evidene at all. Instead I have shown an abundance of evidence.
It saddens me that you assume this is an abundance.
You however are the one lacking. You can not show one example of them useing musical instruments in the NT. You cannot show where using musical instruments are commanded to be used in the NT.
I'm still convinced that psallo refers to music, as has been shown by Biblical scholars.
Just because you dont want to accept the tons of evidence I gave you gives you no right to say I am lacking evidence. God tells me in his inspired word to sing and this excludes anything other than vocal. You can not speak, teach, or admonish with a musical instrument and you know it.From whence comes such rhetoric?
Upvote
0