The Gospel of Thomas [Moved]

[Freedom63]

Nothing about the errancy of the Bible has ever been disproved, in fact it has been proved accurate in every case where scoffers sought to discredit it.

Wow - Talk about choosing to believe what you want in spite of all factual evidence to the contrary.

The bible itself makes no claim for inerrancy because if God have given us a perfect bible He knew man would end up worshiping it instead of Him. This in fact is very much what I see among hard core inerrantists...biblioletry.

 

[OzSpen]

Wow - Talk about choosing to believe what you want in spite of all factual evidence to the contrary.

The bible itself makes no claim for inerrancy because if God have given us a perfect bible He knew man would end up worshiping it instead of Him. This in fact is very much what I see among hard core inerrantists...biblioletry.

Would you please help me to know what your understanding is of the doctrine of inerrancy? Would you please define the doctrine of inerrancy as you understand it so that I know what you are referring to?

Thanks,
Oz

 

[Biker Angel]

What about the Apocrypha. Protestant bibles have taken out the Apocrypha. Are those people in danger of the plagues found within revelation? The Roman Catholic bible includes the Apocrypha and they have been around long before the protestants.

The gospel of Thomas is not Apocrypha. It is from the Nag Hamadi. God however, put the Apocrypha in the bible. What do you think the Catholics use?

"The extra books which were eventually received as Scripture in the Greek Orthodox church and those received in the Roman Catholic church do not correspond exactly to the list of books commonly called "Apocrypha" by Protestants. The Protestant Apocrypha includes all of the books normally included in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. But three of these (1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) were omitted from the list published by the Council of Trent when it fixed the Roman Catholic canon. (Apparently these omissions were unintentional. The "Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures" specified that the books were to be recieved "as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate.") The Eastern Orthodox churches (including the Greek, the Russian, the Ukrainian, the Bulgarian, the Serbian, the Armenian, and others) do not receive 2 Esdras because it was not in the Septuagint, and they receive some books which were present in many manuscripts of the Septuagint but not in the Vulgate (Psalm 151, 3 and 4 Maccabees)."

Apparently The Protestants do have the Apocrypha included in there Bible. But I still don't see a Gospel of Thomas in any of it:

Summaries of the apocryphal books are given below.

The Hebrew Bible
THE LAW
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

THE PROPHETS
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

THE WRITINGS
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles

The Roman Catholic Bible
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
[Prayer of Manasseh]
1 Esdras
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther (with insertions)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
[3 Maccabees]
[4 Maccabees]
Job
Psalms
[Psalm no. 151]
[Odes]
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
[Psalms of Solomon]
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel (with insertions)
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Greek Orthodox Bible
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther (with insertions)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees


Job
Psalms


Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus

Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel (with insertions)
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

King James Version
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther (Hebrew)
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel (Hebrew)
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

APOCRYPHA
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Song of the Three Children
Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

 

[Freedom63]

Would you please help me to know what your understanding is of the doctrine of inerrancy? Would you please define the doctrine of inerrancy fas you understand it so that I know what you are referring to?

Thanks,
Oz

This is a fair question...especially considering the variety of ways the term is used.

There are of course those who hold to a textual and literal perfection, at least in the original manuscript. (Convenient since it does not exist making such a belief impossible to verify) This is the belief these types of statements usually represent.

There is a more reasonable (IMO) view of doctrinal or inerrancy. The bible is absolutely perfect in all of the core doctrines and theology but textual mistakes can and do exist.

My personal view is the the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and useful for teaching, rebuke...etc., but is not perfect because the men who were inspired were not perfect and had a limited knowledge base from which to present this inspiration. At times I believe they even introduced error due to their cultural proclivity for violence or other human failing. (I.E., God's command to slaughter every man, woman, child, and beast, or to stone rebellious children...etc.) I believe God intended an imperfect bible because of the propensity of mankind to make idols out of objects and divert their true and full attention from their Creator. Indeed I have witnessed what I genuinely believe is biblioletry in the fundamental "bible believing" churches I have spent most of my life in.

 

[tyronem]

Would you please help me to know what your understanding is of the doctrine of inerrancy? Would you please define the doctrine of inerrancy as you understand it so that I know what you are referring to?

Thanks,
Oz

Really, got any examples where the Bible has been proven in error?

 

[OzSpen]

This is a fair question...especially considering the variety of ways the term is used.

There are of course those who hold to a textual and literal perfection, at least in the original manuscript. (Convenient since it does not exist making such a belief impossible to verify) This is the belief these types of statements usually represent.

There is a more reasonable (IMO) view of doctrinal or inerrancy. The bible is absolutely perfect in all of the core doctrines and theology but textual mistakes can and do exist.

My personal view is the the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and useful for teaching, rebuke...etc., but is not perfect because the men who were inspired were not perfect and had a limited knowledge base from which to present this inspiration. At times I believe they even introduced error due to their cultural proclivity for violence or other human failing. (I.E., God's command to slaughter every man, woman, child, and beast, or to stone rebellious children...etc.) I believe God intended an imperfect bible because of the propensity of mankind to make idols out of objects and divert their true and full attention from their Creator. Indeed I have witnessed what I genuinely believe is biblioletry in the fundamental "bible believing" churches I have spent most of my life in.

You don't seem to have interacted with the material presented by Bible teachers and scholars over the years that support a doctrine of inerrancy of the autographa (original documents).

Your position does not make logical sense to me when you make this kind of statement:

There is a more reasonable (IMO) view of doctrinal or inerrancy. The bible is absolutely perfect in all of the core doctrines and theology but textual mistakes can and do exist.

How can you guarantee the absolute perfection of core doctrines and theology and not the other details? One author can write both doctrine/theology and history in the one book and what you seem to be stating is that the doctrine/theology is "absolutely perfect" but there can be errors in the remainder. I find this to be arbitrary thinking.

What gives you permission to say doctrine/theology is absolutely perfect but the rest of it has errors because, to use your language, it "is not perfect because the men who were inspired were not perfect and had a limited knowledge base from which to present this inspiration"?

If imperfect men wrote the Bible, surely the logical conclusion is that all of the Bible contains imperfection, including doctrine/theology?

I think that you ought to do more study on the doctrine of inerrancy. Norman Geisler's edited volume, Inerrancy is available online HERE and has some critical understandings of the meaning and application of inerrancy of the original documents.

One of the weaknesses of your position, in my understanding, is that you don't incorporate what God has stated about how He superintended the God-breathed (theopneustos) nature of biblical inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16) and of the involvement of human beings in receiving this revelation from God (2 Peter 1:21), where "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (ESV).

My understanding of inerrancy, after many years of studying both liberal and evangelical scholars, is essentially in agreement with that of Norman Geisler:

"The inspiration of Scripture is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit who, through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors, invested the very words of the original books of Holy Scripture, alone and in their entirety, as the very Word of God without error in all that they teach (including history and science) and is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for the faith and practice of all believers" (Geisler 2002, p. 498).

I recommend a read (online) of the late Greg Bahnsen's article (that is also in Geisler's Inerrancy), "The Inerrancy of the Autographa".

In Christ, Oz

Reference:

Geisler, N. 2002. Systematic Theology (vol. 1). Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

 

[OzSpen]

Really, got any examples where the Bible has been proven in error?

So what is your definition of the doctrine of inerrancy?

If there were not serious questions about certain passages of Scripture, there would have been no need for these three books:

• Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties;
• Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask;
• Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., et. al, Hard Sayings of the Bible.

Only this morning I was examining these three different versions of what Peter remembered about what Jesus said to him.

Matt. 26:75, ‘And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly’ (ESV).


Mark 14:72, 'And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept’ (ESV).


Luke 22:61, ‘And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, "Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times" (ESV)’ .


So what exactly did Jesus say to Peter?

Oz

 

[Freedom63]

You don't seem to have interacted with the material presented by Bible teachers and scholars over the years that support a doctrine of inerrancy of the autographa (original documents).

Your position does not make logical sense to me when you make this kind of statement:

How can you guarantee the absolute perfection of core doctrines and theology and not the other details? One author can write both doctrine/theology and history in the one book and what you seem to be stating is that the doctrine/theology is "absolutely perfect" but there can be errors in the remainder. I find this to be arbitrary thinking.

What gives you permission to say doctrine/theology is absolutely perfect but the rest of it has errors because, to use your language, it "is not perfect because the men who were inspired were not perfect and had a limited knowledge base from which to present this inspiration"?

If imperfect men wrote the Bible, surely the logical conclusion is that all of the Bible contains imperfection, including doctrine/theology?

I think that you ought to do more study on the doctrine of inerrancy. Norman Geisler's edited volume, Inerrancy is available online HERE and has some critical understandings of the meaning and application of inerrancy of the original documents.

One of the weaknesses of your position, in my understanding, is that you don't incorporate what God has stated about how He superintended the God-breathed (theopneustos) nature of biblical inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16) and of the involvement of human beings in receiving this revelation from God (2 Peter 1:21), where "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (ESV).

My understanding of inerrancy, after many years of studying both liberal and evangelical scholars, is essentially in agreement with that of Norman Geisler:


I recommend a read (online) of the late Greg Bahnsen's article (that is also in Geisler's Inerrancy), "The Inerrancy of the Autographa".

In Christ, Oz

Reference:

Geisler, N. 2002. Systematic Theology (vol. 1). Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Seems you were not paying close attention to what I said. When I stated the view was more reasonable it was by way of comparison to the first group. I did not indicate this was my view, rather I clearly presented my view next.

Obviously you and I will find no agreement on this subject and that is fine. But I assure you...after years of indoctrination in the inerrancy mindset and years of study as well, my view is most certainly NOT that of Norman Geisler.

 

[OzSpen]

Seems you were not paying close attention to what I said. When I stated the view was more reasonable it was by way of comparison to the first group. I did not indicate this was my view, rather I clearly presented my view next.

Obviously you and I will find no agreement on this subject and that is fine. But I assure you...after years of indoctrination in the inerrancy mindset and years of study as well, my view is most certainly NOT that of Norman Geisler.

So is the slogan associated with your icon a statement about your theology, "Universal Reconciliationist (Eventually)". Are you saying that there is no eternal punishment for unbelievers and that you ultimately support universalism - eventually?

My simple definition of inerrancy is that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts in all that it affirms.

I have not had inerrancy rammed down my throat since becoming a Christian about 50 years ago. It is my studied conclusion after examining the Scriptures.

It seems that you and I are a long way apart in our doctrine of Scripture.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[tyronem]

So what is your definition of the doctrine of inerrancy?

What the Bible says, is true and absolutely authoritative.

If there were not serious questions about certain passages of Scripture, there would have been no need for these three books:

• Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties;
• Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask;
• Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., et. al, Hard Sayings of the Bible.

People need help defending the Bible, thats all.

Only this morning I was examining these three different versions of what Peter remembered about what Jesus said to him.

Matt. 26:75, ‘And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly’ (ESV).


Mark 14:72, 'And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept’ (ESV).


Luke 22:61, ‘And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, "Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times" (ESV)’ .


So what exactly did Jesus say to Peter?

Oz

Matt + Luke completely agree with each other.

Mark is the only one that names a number

Therefore we cannot conclude that Matt + Luke only meant one crow and could have meant 2 crows, just did not mention a number

Thus they do not contradict, and Mark gives the number of crows.

Nothing much to get too worked up over

 

[Freedom63]

So is the slogan associated with your icon a statement about your theology, "Universal Reconciliationist (Eventually)". Are you saying that there is no eternal punishment for unbelievers and that you ultimately support universalism - eventually?

Yes this is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe eternal damnation is a biblical truth. Eventually is simply my way of indicating I believe in hell...but view it as an ultimate act of redemption (cleansing by fire) for those who knowingly reject Christ in this life. Remember Jesus preached to those in hell...He was not simply rubbing their noses in it so to speak.

 

[Lily_Among_Thorns]

Why the men that wrote scripture were inspired, the many different men and councils that put the many bibles together were not.

Many claim the KJV, originally it wasn't a protestant bible, it's anglican, in fact protestants outright rejected it, mostly because the KJ's council considered and used so latin words over the greek as defined by the Roman Catholics. Protestants brought their Geneva bibles to America.

Each bible, including the KJ's adds numerous words, even verses that can change the intent of what was being said.

Unless you have the original hebrew and greek and understand how to read it, you're being inspired by men as much as God. Culture and politics often defined biblical translations.

If you intend to understand scripture, you need every source available to do so and even at that because people interpret differently we still have hundreds of denominations and thousands of different doctrines.

This is so true and an excellent insight. I've often said the same thing about the interpretation of scripture. The farther away we get from the source, the more change in the meaning within the interpretation of the text. I think we have to keep this in mind when choosing a bible in our own language. Especially when there may be some political or social ambition behind the interpretter. If only there were selfless, blameless men who could interpret the scripture.

 

[Lily_Among_Thorns]

The distortions are so horrifying. The writing is like watching a horror movie.

Here's why I disbelieve it:

Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

Whereas the Bible indicates that you don't have to move things to find Jesus. Because He's a Spirit and is in a piece of wood and in a stone.

Far be it from Peter and Matthew to identify Jesus improperly:

Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

And far be it from His disciples to speak like the Pharisees:

His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"
"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you.
Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."



Matthew would have said that Jesus is the Messiah.
Peter would have said that Jesus is the way to the Father.
Peter also said “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

You do have to seek to find Jesus and that is an act of movement. Split a piece of wood is an act of seeking, pick up a stone is an act of seeking. The whole gospel of Thomas is about seeking. Whoever comes to find the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes this is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe eternal damnation is a biblical truth. Eventually is simply my way of indicating I believe in hell...but view it as an ultimate act of redemption (cleansing by fire) for those who knowingly reject Christ in this life. Remember Jesus preached to those in hell...He was not simply rubbing their noses in it so to speak.

That's a BIG stretch of the theological mind and a humungous stretch of Scriptural statements.

There is eternal torment for unbelievers who die, but it is not cleansing by fire. It is God's punishment for the rejection of the evidence of Himself and His Saviour that He has provided.

I find the doctrine of universalism among theologically liberal 'Christianity', but I don't find it in the Bible. Why don't you start another thread with a title such as, "The Bible teaches universalism - ultimate reconciliation" and seek the biblical evidence for or against such a view that should be posted?

However, on CF perhaps universal reconciliation should probably be posted under "Unorthodox Theology" as it is not an orthodox doctrine.

Oz

 

[Lily_Among_Thorns]

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

​

Like the other conversation about the Gospel of Truth, in the other thread we were talking in; it is the execution of the ideas and thinking that the beliefs/gnosis is where the salvation is at. The writer of Thomas took the sayings of Jesus but left out the sacrifice because that doesn't make sense to them, because they see salvation as only coming from connecting/learning about the spiritual side of the universe.

Are you talking about the sacrifice, the crucifixion? But isn't it the word of God that gives life? It's not his flesh and blood but his Spirit which is given through his life. And the Word of God is the Spirit of Truth. It is the Spirit that lives not the flesh and blood. The sacrifice is in his words, words that are Spirit. Words that give life. It is the life-giving word. Not the flesh and blood.

 

[Freedom63]

That's a BIG stretch of the theological mind and a humungous stretch of Scriptural statements.

There is eternal torment for unbelievers who die, but it is not cleansing by fire. It is God's punishment for the rejection of the evidence of Himself and His Saviour that He has provided.

I find the doctrine of universalism among theologically liberal 'Christianity', but I don't find it in the Bible. Why don't you start another thread with a title such as, "The Bible teaches universalism - ultimate reconciliation" and seek the biblical evidence for or against such a view that should be posted?

However, on CF perhaps universal reconciliation should probably be posted under "Unorthodox Theology" as it is not an orthodox doctrine.

Oz

Do I need to remind you that I was merely responding to your question? LOL

Feel free to participate in one of the many threads in the unorthodox section dealing with precisely that.

 

[OzSpen]

What the Bible says, is true and absolutely authoritative.

People need help defending the Bible, thats all.

Matt + Luke completely agree with each other.

Mark is the only one that names a number

Therefore we cannot conclude that Matt + Luke only meant one crow and could have meant 2 crows, just did not mention a number

Thus they do not contradict, and Mark gives the number of crows.

Nothing much to get too worked up over

I essentially agree with your conclusions. There is no contradiction among Matt, Mark and Luke. One gives more information than another.

My understanding of inerrancy as I've stated elsewhere in this thread is that the Bible, in the original manuscripts, is without error (inerrant/infallible) in all that it affirms.

Some complain that we don't have the original documents, so how can I support inerrancy when those documents are not extant today?

I have found R. Laird Harris's view to be an excellent explanation of this apparent anomaly:

"Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer's scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain's standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it" (R. Laird Harris 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 88-89).

Oz

 

[tyronem]

I essentially agree with your conclusions. There is no contradiction among Matt, Mark and Luke. One gives more information than another.

My understanding of inerrancy as I've stated elsewhere in this thread is that the Bible, in the original manuscripts, is without error (inerrant/infallible) in all that it affirms.

Some complain that we don't have the original documents, so how can I support inerrancy when those documents are not extant today?

I have found R. Laird Harris's view to be an excellent explanation of this apparent anomaly:

Oz

Good thoughts in that, philosophically sound

 

[ElijahW]

Are you talking about the sacrifice, the crucifixion? But isn't it the word of God that gives life? It's not his flesh and blood but his Spirit which is given through his life. And the Word of God is the Spirit of Truth. It is the Spirit that lives not the flesh and blood. The sacrifice is in his words, words that are Spirit. Words that give life. It is the life-giving word. Not the flesh and blood.

[FONT=&quot]Yes, technically the Word is what gives life to everything. But does knowledge of the Word grant you some form of immortality? That is what the Gnostics were suggesting. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Immortality for the catholics comes with the resurrection of the dead, not with getting your soul to the spiritual side of the universe. The resurrection of the dead comes about when the Kingdom of God is established. The Kingdom of God is established when Jesus is recognized as the king of kings by humanity. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Him setting an example of the authority that serves the people, instead of ruling over them is the central ingredient they were waiting on for the ideological/spiritual kingdom they were trying to build. The Gnostics don’t believe in building a kingdom where salvation comes when we start taking care of each other but comes when you study enough philosophy at one of their schools.
[/FONT]

 

[DamianWarS]

the bible is inspired... where do you get this word "inspired"... 2 Timothy 3:16 of course which states in the NASB "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness". The original Greek word for "inspired" is theopneustos which is a combination of two words theo + pneu which is God + the verb "to blow" or literally God-breathed. This is in fact the original meaning of "inspiration" which is from latin in + spirare which means the same as pneu. The original meaning is "immediate influence of God" and is intended as the equivalent to this very greek word. However "inspired" has been warped into a more ambivalent or general source for influence so some times when we hear the word it may not hold the same meaning as we see it today then what what originally intended. Given the direction that the definition of the word inspired has embodied today I believe that God-breathed is more true to the original greek.

What is 2 Timothy 3:16 talking about? Well it of course is talking about the scripture that Paul accepted at the time this was written however it has been generally accepted to extend to the entire canon of scripture. Certainly Paul himself would have known that his words would go beyond just the direct context of his immediate letter. The canon of scripture is the same for the New Testament and we are all agree that the books should all be included in the New Testament. Where the canon differs is the Old Testament where Protestants take a more conservative approach accepting only the Hebrew Cannon which is called the Tanakh and reject any book the Jews reject and certinaly one can see the logic in that. Deuterocanonical or apocryphal books are books that are not included in the Tanakh and the Jews do not accept as cannon (they may still accept as story). I would suggest however that 2 Timothy 3:16 at least includes the Tanakh as the context of scripture but it is unclear what Paul thought of as other scripture.

If the Bible is "God-breathed" it seems to take a little more weight than just "inspired". It is difficult to suggest that the bible is not infallible when it is also God-breathed and "God-breathed" seems to put more interaction from God himself than just a source of influence. If your concept of "inspiration" is from 2 Timothy 3:16 than you need to take the definition of the words used in that text instead of modern day evolved words.