Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

Where does he declare that?

II Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is God-Breathed (theopneustos)".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Taxidev said:
On 7/14/2018 at 10:41 AM, waysider said:

1. I may be remembering incorrectly, but, in PFAL, Wierwille says (I'm paraphrasing.) "All means all, from Genesis 1:1  through Revelation 22:21."

This means nothing to me, so this argument is moot.

Regardless, whether or not this means anything to you does not make the argument moot.

Did you take the PFAL class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the canon had been decided by a dozen good old boys in a basement with a case of 'shine and a stack of scrolls, deciding what should be "promoted" to canon and what shouldn't, then the question of the authority would ride on Paul's having written them and saying so,  and a bunch of drunks.

FF Bruce ("The Scrolls and the Parchments")  and Neil Lightfoot ("How We Got the Bible") among others, argue an entirely different scenario took place.  According to them, what was canon of the New Testament, FOR THE MOST PART, was considered self-evident.  They were written within the 1st century AD, and all carried the feel of Scripture and the quality of same. (I'm paraphrasing heavily for brevity's sake.)  What didn't make it, FOR THE MOST PART,  was agreed to have been clearly of a different caliber.  There were books written several centuries later, and most pushed some esoteric or Gnostic POV that felt like it didn't match the others.    As for books like "the Infancy Gospel of Thomas",  that was written as a fanfic and was accepted as such at the time- considered good for entertainment but hardly Scripture.     When just grabbing all old documents together that didn't make it and calling them some sort of "Lost books" or "forgotten books",  that's a lot like grabbing the contents of my Bible case (with any songs, poems, short stories, etc)  and claiming they're of equal authority as the Bible that's in the case because it's in the same case.   That was possible then because they didn't have leatherbound Bibles as a single book- they would have had a bunch of scrolls stored together.  So, someone just grabbing all the scrolls indiscriminately could easily think they were all meant to be read the same, with equal authority and equal utility.

Obviously, not everyone would agree with either or both writers.  I find that it's a sensible position to hold even if one thinks it isn't what happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, waysider said:

Did you take the PFAL class?

Yes, I did. 

Just because VPW says it means Genesis to Revelation, doesn't make it so.  I see that as his opinion.  When that verse was written, it was in a letter that wasn't part of any official document compilation.  So, the 4 gospels, Acts, and Romans through Revelation didn't actually exist yet except as letters to specific churches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Taxidev said:

Just because VPW says it means Genesis to Revelation, doesn't make it so. 

I agree with you 100%. I was responding to your post on the last page. (7/14 @ 7:55 AM)

I apologize for not making that clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 10:41 AM, waysider said:
On 7/14/2018 at 7:55 AM, Taxidev said:

I just looked at that verse, and Paul says "all scripture".  He doesn't say his letters which, at that time, weren't scripture.  Only the Torah was scripture.

There are a couple problems with this approach.

1. I may be remembering incorrectly, but, in PFAL, Wierwille says (I'm paraphrasing.) "All means all, from Genesis 1:1  through Revelation 22:21."

So, you say you agree with me that just because VPW says it doesn't make it so.  Yet, here you say this approach has problems.  I don't understand - it can't be both, they are in conflict with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2018 at 1:55 PM, waysider said:

II Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is God-Breathed (theopneustos)".

I'm not so certain I really favor that "translation"...  I think it could be understood a couple other ways...  According to "Elliot's Commentaary" it reads:

Quote

Although this rendering is grammatically possible, the more strictly accurate translation, and the one adopted by nearly all the oldest and most trustworthy versions (for example, the Syriac and the Vulgate), and by a great many of the principal expositors in all ages (for instance, by such teachers as Origen, Theodoret, Grotius, Luther, Meyer, Ellicott, and Alford), runs as follows: "Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof," &c.

Thus, the emphasis, and the point is not as to marking what is "theopneustos", but that whatever is "theopneustos" has a purpose.. The question of what is "theopneustos" is still left open.

Another view from Greek, is that there are 2 things noted.. Both are types of "writings" - (graphe),  as in "Every God inspired and profitable writings are for doctrine, for reproof, ....."

Again, nothing is being labelled as "theopneustos", but whatever is, along with "other" profitable" writings are once again for a reason...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 6:32 AM, Taxidev said:

So, you say you agree with me that just because VPW says it doesn't make it so.  Yet, here you say this approach has problems.  I don't understand - it can't be both, they are in conflict with each other.

At the time of the post you are citing, this forum was in About the Way. As such, The Way's teaching on II Timothy 3:16 may have been relevant to the conversation, even if it is not relevant to the actual truth of the subject.

I agree with you: just because Wierwille said it, doesn't make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:

Thus, the emphasis, and the point is not as to marking what is "theopneustos", but that whatever is "theopneustos" has a purpose.. The question of what is "theopneustos" is still left open.

What difference does it make to the topic of dispensationalism? (None whatsoever, as far as I can tell.)
In fact, it doesn't appear to me to make much difference most anywhere else either.

However, this:

3 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:

Another view from Greek, is that there are 2 things noted.. Both are types of "writings" - (graphe),  as in "Every God inspired and profitable writings are for doctrine, for reproof, ....."

Again, nothing is being labelled as "theopneustos", but whatever is, along with "other" profitable" writings are once again for a reason...

...is another matter altogether.  What criteria do you suppose anyone is going to use to think or say what is "profitable writings"?
Although, the wealth gospel teachers (and there's a bunch of them nowadays) would surely love that particular translation, and would undoubtedly have a field day with it.

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raf said:

I agree with you: just because Wierwille said it, doesn't make it so.

That makes three of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raf said:

I agree with you: just because Wierwille said it, doesn't make it so.

What if Wierwille just misunderstood the snow on the gas pumps revelation?  What if God was really saying, Wierwille, I need to teach you the Word, because your convoluted logic on it is like nobody I've ever seen since the first century?

:dance:

No?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Although this rendering is grammatically possible, the more strictly accurate translation, and the one adopted by nearly all the oldest and most trustworthy versions (for example, the Syriac and the Vulgate), and by a great many of the principal expositors in all ages (for instance, by such teachers as Origen, Theodoret, Grotius, Luther, Meyer, Ellicott, and Alford), runs as follows: "Every scripture inspired by God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof," &c.

TLC: 

What difference does it make to the topic of dispensationalism? (None whatsoever, as far as I can tell.)  In fact, it doesn't appear to me to make much difference most anywhere else either.

 

T&O:

Whether it makes any difference to you or your thoughts concerning dispensationalism makes zero difference to me.  

But since there are many in the dispensational view that hold that the Tanakh is not applicable to them or this "age", this is a rather decent verse stating just how applicable the Tanakh is to both Timothy and us today.  As it states rather plainly that the "theopneustos" writings are applicable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.  And these writings, as the verse prior to this states, were one's Timothy had known from a youth. "Holy" Writings that are able to make one wise unto salvation through trust in the Messiah.  I would say that puts quite a bit of cohesion to both what was written of old, and what Paul was writing at the time.

At any rate, my response was for waysider who was using the verse to show that Paul was marking his writings as "theopneustos", whereas I don't see that verse supporting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×