What part of 'ALL' cannot be understood?

[B®ent]

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

Yet, liberals continue to trash the authority of the Bible when it comes to homosexuality and other moral issues, as if the Bible cannot be trusted. Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a complete lie? If so, why do you even bother reading a Bible?

 

[seebs]

Ironically, you've introduced two questionable translations in just this one verse.

Anyway, I agree that there's a problem with the understanding of the word "all" here. When we talk about "all" of something, we are not necessarily talking about things that don't exist yet. We are talking about things that already exist -- such as the old canon.

So lemme ask you a question.

Do you have Tobit in your Bible?

If not, why not?

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

When we talk about "all" of something, we are not necessarily talking about things that don't exist yet.

Nothing is new under the sun.

 

[seebs]

Nothing is new under the sun.

True.

But when the letters were written, they may or may not have been included in the notion of "all Scripture".

That said, there's a couple of major points of disagreement about what this passage means, and there's a very strong tendency in some circles to just assume that a particular meaning is what the passage meant. Formally, it's called eisegesis; rather than studying the Scripture to find out what it says, people come to the Scripture having been told what they must believe it says, and can't read it on its own.

Reading the whole passage, rather than an out-of-context prooftext, we find that Paul was referring here to the existing Hebrew canon.

That's not to say I don't consider the NT inspired as well. I do not believe the Bible to be in error on these issues; I just don't necessarily agree with other people on what it says.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

I don't really think it's neccessary to "study" the Bible more than what's reasonably expected. I personally take the O.P's quoted scripture at face value.

 

[seebs]

I don't really think it's neccessary to "study" the Bible more than what's reasonably expected. I personally take the O.P's quoted scripture at face value.

Well, there's your problem! You're not treating the material with the respect and seriousness it deserves.

Can you spot the two points in that translation where a translator made a doctrinal decision, and picked one doctrine over another to decide how to translate the text?

If you can't, then you can't possibly have a basis for saying you know what the Bible says before some guy with an agenda goes in and tweaks it a bit in the translation.

Given how central this verse is to many Christian belief systems, I'd think it would be worth more effort than a casual assumption that the interpretation most convenient to someone's political and ecclesiastic agendas is obviously what the verse really means.

In particular, if you take the Bible seriously, surely you should be trusting Peter's warning about the dangers of casual or "unlearned" interpretations of Paul. But what you describe -- taking it at face value -- is precisely what Peter warns us about!

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong; I'm saying you haven't given the matter enough thought to justify confidence. (I may be wrong, but it certainly sounds from what you say like you haven't put in the study.)

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

I don't really see why it's so complicated. I read it like:

"The Bible's from God and it's useful for knowing what's right."

If there's an alternative interpretation i've not thought of it.

 

[kopilo]

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

Yet, liberals continue to trash the authority of the Bible when it comes to homosexuality and other moral issues, as if the Bible cannot be trusted. Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a complete lie? If so, why do you even bother reading a Bible?

"Labels are for soup cans not people".

It's not the bible that some of us don't trust, it's that we would rather study about the translations then give it up to someone else to tell us what the words mean.

 

[ElvisFan42]

If I put a book together and proclaim it all came right from God... ah, nevermind, I've read your other posts, there's no point in continuing.

 

[seebs]

I don't really see why it's so complicated. I read it like:

"The Bible's from God and it's useful for knowing what's right."

I know how you read it.

If there's an alternative interpretation i've not thought of it.

Then you should be very wary, because the Bible itself clearly tells you you need to be more careful than that understanding Paul.

First off, there's two points on which the translation in question is presupposing a doctrinal position, rather than presenting the original concepts neutrally and leaving it to the reader to seek understanding.

Secondly, I don't think this comes even within hailing distance of the standard of "study" we are called to if we are to treat the Bible with the respect it deserves.

No one's saying you have to develop intimate familiarity with Koine Greek, but at least being aware of how translators shape passages would help a lot.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

I know how you read it.

What is the purpose of this reply? You didn't know, because I just told you.

 

[seebs]

You interpret it the same way that everyone else who uses that particular translation and takes it "at face value" reads it, or close enough as to make no significant difference.

 

[keltic63]

Is it possible that Timothy was referring to his own letter as he wrote that verse? Did he know that his letter would become part of the canon of scripture? although the early church used an accepted list of books that became the new testament, it took over 100 years for that list to become standard. It wasn't until 1546 and the Council of Trent that the Bible as we know it came into existance. Could Timothy have foreseen this? Context! we need context to understand Timothy's words!

 

[elman]

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

Yet, liberals continue to trash the authority of the Bible when it comes to homosexuality and other moral issues, as if the Bible cannot be trusted. Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a complete lie? If so, why do you even bother reading a Bible?

Who decides what is scripture and what is not? Is this verse scripture? Who decided that? Why am I unable to see divine truth in the Bible and at the same time question decisions of men as to what is scripture and what is not?l

 

[RealityCheck]

I don't think debating with the O.P. will be that useful. I thought to ask about the parts of the Bible that refer to the stoning of rebellious children, or punishments for sex during menstrual periods, or selling your children as slaves... but reading his other posts in other threads, I think he'd actually agree that all of those are good and useful.

 

[RealityCheck]

Is it possible that Timothy was referring to his own letter as he wrote that verse? Did he know that his letter would become part of the canon of scripture? although the early church used an accepted list of books that became the new testament, it took over 100 years for that list to become standard. It wasn't until 1546 and the Council of Trent that the Bible as we know it came into existance. Could Timothy have foreseen this? Context! we need context to understand Timothy's words!

The author was referring to OT scriptures (even though they weren't called that at the time) to answer the question of which of the older texts should Christians take as inspired, and which they should not. The answer here is "all of them". Of course, the author probably had a specific set of scriptures in mind... he probably did not mean to include those books later classed as the Jewish Pseudepigrapha (rough translation - books not considered to be inspired by God), but at the time of the author's letter those books would not have been classed as such.

 

[kopilo]

I thought to ask about the parts of the Bible that refer to the stoning of rebellious children, or punishments for sex during menstrual periods, or selling your children as slaves... but reading his other posts in other threads, I think he'd actually agree that all of those are good and useful.

Do you mean such as this?

Remember, these are the same Devil-worshippers who banned spanking. They want to remove children from parental authority.

 

[HisEagle]

What does this have to do with Ethics and Morality?

 

[kopilo]

Well the OP seems to be copied from here... I don't know, good question.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

kopilo, the Bible is opposed to homosexuality. I don't see why it's radical to oppose it's condonement in our schools.