Scripture: "All Scripture is God-breathed"

[humblemuslim]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"- 2 Timothy 3:16

We all know the Bible is a collection of texts and was not physically written by a single person, prophet, messenger, apostle, or whatever you want to call them.

Timothy being one of the many texts makes quite a general statement that "All Scripture is God-breathed".

How do we know what "Scripture" the author of Timothy is referring to?

For the purpose of this question I am not trying to open the door for other religious texts outside Christianity (Qur'an, Vedas, etc.). What I am more getting at is how Catholics have more texts in their Bibles (Texts referred to as 'Apocrypha'), while other Christians will not include these texts in their Bibles. So there is a fundamental disagreement on what should be included and what is "God-breathed". In addition to this there are Scriptures referred to in the current Bible that are not a part of it. Lost? Renamed? Something else?

In order to judge what would qualify we need a list of criterion. Does the Bible include such? Where?

 

[Adoniram]

Jesus said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words will by no means pass away." (Mt. 24:35) By this I can only assume that God has providentially and supernaturally protected and preserved His Word in the form of His liking. That which was not truly inspired by Him has passed into disuse.

With the New Testaments being the same, the Catholic Bible includes seven more books in it's Old Testament than the Protestant Bible. During Jesus' time, the OT canon, called the Septuagint, was the accepted Scripture of the Jews and included those seven books. Shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jewish leaders dropped those seven books from their canon, probably due to doctrinal differences that were not in agreement with the rest of their scripture. The Catholics elected to include those in their Bible and derive support for their tenets of purgatory, prayer for the dead, intercession of the angels, and intercession of saints in heaven from them. The Protestants elected not include those books because doctrines such as the above do not find support anywhere else in the Scriptures.

The main criteria is that the Bible is in agreement with itself from beginning to end. It does not contradict itself.

 

[humblemuslim]

Jesus said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words will by no means pass away." (Mt. 24:35) By this I can only assume that God has providentially and supernaturally protected and preserved His Word in the form of His liking. That which was not truly inspired by Him has passed into disuse.

With the New Testaments being the same, the Catholic Bible includes seven more books in it's Old Testament than the Protestant Bible. During Jesus' time, the OT canon, called the Septuagint, was the accepted Scripture of the Jews and included those seven books. Shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jewish leaders dropped those seven books from their canon, probably due to doctrinal differences that were not in agreement with the rest of their scripture. The Catholics elected to include those in their Bible and derive support for their tenets of purgatory, prayer for the dead, intercession of the angels, and intercession of saints in heaven from them. The Protestants elected not include those books because doctrines such as the above do not find support anywhere else in the Scriptures.

The main criteria is that the Bible is in agreement with itself from beginning to end. It does not contradict itself.

Thanks for sharing this. It was most interesting.

This generates another question. So a text could potentially be added if it does not conflict what what is already there? Because there are books mentioned in the Bible that are absent.

 

[freeport]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"- 2 Timothy 3:16

We all know the Bible is a collection of texts and was not physically written by a single person, prophet, messenger, apostle, or whatever you want to call them.

Timothy being one of the many texts makes quite a general statement that "All Scripture is God-breathed".

How do we know what "Scripture" the author of Timothy is referring to?

For the purpose of this question I am not trying to open the door for other religious texts outside Christianity (Qur'an, Vedas, etc.). What I am more getting at is how Catholics have more texts in their Bibles (Texts referred to as 'Apocrypha'), while other Christians will not include these texts in their Bibles. So there is a fundamental disagreement on what should be included and what is "God-breathed". In addition to this there are Scriptures referred to in the current Bible that are not a part of it. Lost? Renamed? Something else?

In order to judge what would qualify we need a list of criterion. Does the Bible include such? Where?

We believe all Scripture is not by men, but by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21 (New International Version)

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.




There are some books of the Bible which not all include.



We go by the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit which moved the authors of the Bible. 'The Holy Spirit brings to mind scripture'.


As for why there are minor disagreements on what books to include, it should be noted: these are very minor books. It is not a fundamental disagreement. Sometimes these books are looked at and consulted by various denominations.



It is definitely not so fundamental so as to go to something of a dramatically different "flavor" as the Vedas or the Koran.


Christians have been writing for two thousand years: some are more metaphoric, some are less. Some are more pure, some less pure. There are many popular books by Christians where there is much put in there by the Holy Spirit.


The Bible, however, is different, it is purely as the prophets and apostles were moved by the Holy Spirit.


As for scriptures that are "lost", that is debatable, and largely people making assumptions. For instance, in Jude one sees a line about the Devil arguing over the Body of Moses and some say this may have come from a book which was written about in some places called the "Assumption of Moses". It may have. It may not have.


Also there are some quotes which are thought to be a part of a lost book of Enoch. (Some have said this has since been found.) We do not know that for sure.


People forget that Jesus was with the Apostles for several years. Further, there were many prophets during that time. Not everything of interest was recorded.


People forget Enoch's journey was not recorded by man, nor Noah, nor Lot, nor Abraham. These people did not have scribes following them around. God told their stories to Moses in the tent and Moses wrote them down as God dictated to him.

Otherwise, see my signature... 'we do not need teachers, for we have the anointing'.

While we are not believed: 'that anointing is real' and 'we know it is real'.

1 John

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. 20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[d] 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

The Kingdom of Heaven is among men, but 'does not come with careful observation' so they see it.


This is because the 'Kingdom of Heaven is in the heart'.


Luke 21

20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within[b] you."

The is "among you" and both meanings are true.


We are simply not of this world and decide by our own hidden counsel what is of God and what is not of God.

 

[ebia]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"- 2 Timothy 3:16

We all know the Bible is a collection of texts and was not physically written by a single person, prophet, messenger, apostle, or whatever you want to call them.

Timothy being one of the many texts makes quite a general statement that "All Scripture is God-breathed".

How do we know what "Scripture" the author of Timothy is referring to?

For the purpose of this question I am not trying to open the door for other religious texts outside Christianity (Qur'an, Vedas, etc.). What I am more getting at is how Catholics have more texts in their Bibles (Texts referred to as 'Apocrypha'), while other Christians will not include these texts in their Bibles. So there is a fundamental disagreement on what should be included and what is "God-breathed". In addition to this there are Scriptures referred to in the current Bible that are not a part of it. Lost? Renamed? Something else?

In order to judge what would qualify we need a list of criterion. Does the Bible include such? Where?

The differences aren't fundamental, they are on the margins. And they are much more blurred than your post would imply. Catholics, while including the Deuterocanonical texts acknowledge by that very name that they are of a second level of canon, while quite a few other traditions stop short of calling them canonical but still acknowledge that they have value (eg the Anglican 39 Articles).

While people often like clear cut, unambiguous, answers that are nice and black-and-white God seems happy to work within the fuzzyness and blurred boundaries that are the real stuff of human existence.

The reality is that the process of canonisation only truely ever applied to the New Testament texts. The criteria for the Old Testament has always been "those texts that were part of the Jewish scriptures" and that has always been somewhat ambiguous since the Jews themselves only decided to define it after and in reaction to the rise of Christianity.

 

[Adoniram]

Thanks for sharing this. It was most interesting.

This generates another question. So a text could potentially be added if it does not conflict what what is already there? Because there are books mentioned in the Bible that are absent.

No, I don't think so. The reason is that the Bible is complete as it is. It is the complete revelation of God, Jesus, and His plan of salvation to man. Nothing can make it any clearer than what God has already said.

John was instructed to write in the last book of the Bible, the Revelation of Jesus Christ: "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:18-19) This was not the only place he made such a declaration.

Deut. 4
2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Prov. 30
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Jer. 26
2 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word.

A great deal of the Bible is historical, even the NT, with teaching using the Jews as examples of what God expects. There is quite a bit of doctrine, a lot of teaching for edification, and instruction in living righteously before God. In the Bible, one can find instruction regarding just about every experience that life can throw at him. There is also a good deal of prophesy, in which God gives us glimpses of what is to come. Daniel and Ezekiel are full of prophesy, but in the Revelation, God ties up all the prophesies in the person of Jesus Christ and brings it all to a conclusion. It is complete.

Now a lot of Godly teachers write many things from which one can gain insight and instruction. But can it be Scripture? No.

 

[98cwitr]

^^^ Rev:22:18

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

 

[humblemuslim]

When I reference lost texts I am talking about mentions like these:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

These are a examples of what I am referring to. The book of Jasher, Samuel the seer, and Nathan the prophet are not found in the Bible, at least not by those names.

That is why I wonder if the Bible is really complete.

Also, I have question in response to this statement:

John was instructed to write in the last book of the Bible, the Revelation of Jesus Christ: "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:18-19) This was not the only place he made such a declaration.

Deut. 4
2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Prov. 30
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Jer. 26
2 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word.

I take it all these verses mean humans should not add or subtract from Scripture, but God can. Otherwise the New Testament would violate this command.

If God has placed such strict warnings, could it then mean it has already happened and the punishment for the guilty has been detailed for that very reason? Especially if you read the quote from Revelation. I mean there are people adding and taking things away from Scripture. Mormons being one such example adding a whole book.

 

[98cwitr]

the possibility exists, but take into account that a large potion that has been retained, and the fact that every word is of God, then we are only able to deal with the cards we are dealt. If we are missing one big deal of a book that would change things dramatically then realize what that change would mean is only humanistic perspectives in addition to truth we have found already. What we are given is our salvation regardless of holes and gaps. Those will be filled in due time.

For us Christians, what else did we need but Him who fulfilled the prophecy of the Old Testament, that is Jesus Christ- The Lord. The rest is truth that explains things and tells us why...but what we have and why we have it is enough for us.

 

[ebia]

When I reference lost texts I am talking about mentions like these:





These are a examples of what I am referring to. The book of Jasher, Samuel the seer, and Nathan the prophet are not found in the Bible, at least not by those names.

That is why I wonder if the Bible is really complete.

Those books no longer exist. But the bible simply refers to them - that does not, in itself, imply that they should be part of the bible. There's no reason why every book referenced in the bible should be part of the bible.

Also, I have question in response to this statement:

I take it all these verses mean humans should not add or subtract from Scripture, but God can. Otherwise the New Testament would violate this command.

If God has placed such strict warnings, could it then mean it has already happened and the punishment for the guilty has been detailed for that very reason? Especially if you read the quote from Revelation. I mean there are people adding and taking things away from Scripture. Mormons being one such example adding a whole book.

The quote from Revelation quite clearly only refers to the book of Revelation.

But yes, there are people who add to scripture that which is not scriptural, and equally those who effectively remove material from scripture. How could it be otherwise. A level of collective discernment will always be required to decide what is and what is not inspired scripture. One distinctive of the early church is that it did that openly, collaboratively, by a process of collective discernment that is well recorded in history. Only at the very end of that process was the final N.T. canon 'rubber stamped' by an ecumenical council of bishops on behalf of the collective church.