IITim.2:15, "Cutting the Word of Truth Straight"

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
shturt678 said:
Thank you for your response!

Wait till you get my age and milage, everything is confusing. If I recall I said the LXX is corrupt, then you said provide evidence that it's corrupt, or something like this. Then I provided passages where the N.T. writers did not quote, but appropriated passages from the LXX, however obviously corrected the LXX...plenty more passages available. Then you said I was confused with the Masoretic Text. other text and so on trying to recall. At least now you can see exactly where I'm 'confused' as don't have a problem with it - use to it.

Old Jack trying to get unconfused
Sorry this didn't really help. Show me something from the LXX that is corrupt.
 

Forsakenone

Member
Dec 25, 2013
185
8
18
Sorry this didn't really help. Show me something from the LXX that is corrupt.
Try the LXX itself.

What exactly is the inspired "Word" in the context of IITim.2:15. Jn.1:1, "Word was God" for example? Scriptures = inspired Word, another example as in IITim.3:16? Translations = inspired Word, another? One's K.J.V. = inspired Word? Or ? = inspired Word? One's one valid interpretation = inspired word?

Old Jack
Great question! Might be why it is written that man shall not live by bread alone but every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

In such, if God the Father, who is the Son of God, who only dwells in the bossom of the Father...well the you don't need me to interpret scriptures for you, you will see what I have seen an hear what I have heard...

All things are delivered unto me of my Father:
and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father;
neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Matt 11:27
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice
of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 5:25
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given
to the Son to have life in himself;
John 5:26
And the Father himself, which hath sent me,
hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard
his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
John 5:37
Not that any man hath seen the Father,
save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
John 6:46
 

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
RANDOR said:
Think maybe you boys have this all backwards.......................it's XXL..............just in case you want to get me somethin for Christmas :)
Speaking of confused, I always thought "70" backwards was "007" or something like this?

Old Jack back to the drawing board :unsure:
StanJ said:
Sorry this didn't really help. Show me something from the LXX that is corrupt.
Thank you for your response again!

Haven't had time to get to the library yet, however off the top again Isa.14:12, "Lucifer" is a corruption along with Isa.45:7, "evil" only for openers as slow on the uptake due to being more in the N.T. these past decades...not an excuse as should put more time in the O.T.

I strongly still feel where the N.T. writers showed the LXX's corruptions to only about 7% with appropriated passages directly from the LXX compared to the less favorable Hebrew O.T.'s about 32% corrupted passages thus the writers didn't appropriate very much from the Hebrew Text (found some ol' notes on this very issue) carries more weight than the actual former (and much much more) LXX corrupt passages. Thus the LXX is a very valid Text, yet with one passage discredited, not inspired...sorry bout' that one. The original Hebrew Autographs were the inerrant, infallible, and inspired Text which we don't have of course.

Old Jack working through his confusion again, thank you for your patience!
Forsakenone said:
Try the LXX itself.


Great question! Might be why it is written that man shall not live by bread alone but every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

In such, if God the Father, who is the Son of God, who only dwells in the bossom of the Father...well the you don't need me to interpret scriptures for you, you will see what I have seen an hear what I have heard...

All things are delivered unto me of my Father:
and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father;
neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Matt 11:27
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice
of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 5:25
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given
to the Son to have life in himself;
John 5:26
And the Father himself, which hath sent me,
hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard
his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
John 5:37
Not that any man hath seen the Father,
save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
John 6:46
Thank you my brother!

Encouraging with brother Stan,

Old thankful Jack
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
Paul was not aware nor would he have been presumptuous enough to consider his letters, SCRIPTURE.
Paul was well aware of his apostolic authority and he certainly did consider his oral and written teaching to be the word of God.

1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

2Co 10:8 For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed.
2Co 10:9 I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters.


1Th 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Here's a little bonus free of charge. The Apostle Peter considered Paul's letters to be Scripture.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
shturt678 said:
Haven't had time to get to the library yet, however off the top again Isa.14:12, "Lucifer" is a corruption along with Isa.45:7, "evil" only for openers as slow on the uptake due to being more in the N.T. these past decades...not an excuse as should put more time in the O.T.

I strongly still feel where the N.T. writers showed the LXX's corruptions to only about 7% with appropriated passages directly from the LXX compared to the less favorable Hebrew O.T.'s about 32% corrupted passages thus the writers didn't appropriate very much from the Hebrew Text (found some ol' notes on this very issue) carries more weight than the actual former (and much much more) LXX corrupt passages. Thus the LXX is a very valid Text, yet with one passage discredited, not inspired...sorry bout' that one. The original Hebrew Autographs were the inerrant, infallible, and inspired Text which we don't have of course.
OK 'Lucifer' was the Word Jerome used when he translated the Greek word ἑωσφόρος (Heōsphóros) into Latin. The Greek means "bringer of dawn" or "Day Star" in English. I guess it would depend on what English translation you are reading, but the following renders it properly;
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf
I'm sure the same thing holds true for 'evils', NOT EVIL which you show, which is also translated 'calamity'.
No CORRUPTION as far as I can tell. I never said the LXX was inspired Jack. I said ONLY the autographs were.
Nomad said:
Paul was well aware of his apostolic authority and he certainly did consider his oral and written teaching to be the word of God.

1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

2Co 10:8 For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed.
2Co 10:9 I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters.


1Th 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Here's a little bonus free of charge. The Apostle Peter considered Paul's letters to be Scripture.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Not the same thing Nomad and you know it. BTW, I already dealt with 2 Peter 3:16...Peter did not refer to Paul's LETTERS as scripture, what he says is;
"ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
and read what Paul himself says in 2 Tim 3:15;
"and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

Paul did NOT think his writings/letters were Holy Scripture. Yes they were authoritative as was his ministry and He knew that, but for the purpose of THIS OP, He was not referring to HIS writings.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
BTW, I already dealt with 2 Peter 3:16...Peter did not refer to Paul's LETTERS as scripture, what he says is;
"ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
Twisting a passage of Scripture and denying its clear teaching is not dealing with it. Let's look more carefully.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.


Follow Peter's train of thought carefully. It's not that difficult.

1. Peter tells his audience that Paul wrote to them according to the wisdom given him,

2. as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.

3.There are some things in them that are hard to understand

4. which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction

5. as they do the OTHER Scriptures

Paul did NOT think his writings/letters were Holy Scripture. Yes they were authoritative as was his ministry and He knew that...
Once again Stan, a distinction without a difference.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Nomad said:
Twisting a passage of Scripture and denying its clear teaching is not dealing with it. Let's look more carefully.
2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Follow Peter's train of thought carefully. It's not that difficult.
1. Peter tells his audience that Paul wrote to them according to the wisdom given him,
2. as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.
3.There are some things in them that are hard to understand
4. which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction
5. as they do the OTHER Scriptures
Once again Stan, a distinction without a difference.
You're just full of ad hominems aren't you?

I know what the words say Nomad. Peter didn't call Paul writings scriptures and neither did Paul, so no matter how you highlight, embolden or underline the words, they say what they say.

I have figured out thought that is regular response of; "a distinction without a difference.", is your way of saying you have no response, and when you think about it, is kind of an oxymoron.
 

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
StanJ said:
OK 'Lucifer' was the Word Jerome used when he translated the Greek word ἑωσφόρος (Heōsphóros) into Latin. The Greek means "bringer of dawn" or "Day Star" in English. I guess it would depend on what English translation you are reading, but the following renders it properly;
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf
I'm sure the same thing holds true for 'evils', NOT EVIL which you show, which is also translated 'calamity'.
No CORRUPTION as far as I can tell. I never said the LXX was inspired Jack. I said ONLY the autographs were.

<snip> only for clarity
Thank you for your response again!

In the majors, we agreed, the LXX not an inspired Text...Amen! In the minors, eg, Isa.14:12, "brilliant Morning Star," my rendition is contextually sound due to its meaning being symbolic of the "king of Babylon." "Lucifer" is a corruption in translations in need of correction, in the minors in the sense of cutting the Word in Truth. Same with the corrupt rendition of "evil" as God did not and cannot create "evil" as He cannot go against His own contextual Word.

Old Jack,

Appreciate you and other posters!
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ,

I am having trouble understanding how you can interpret 2 Peter 3:16 as not asserting Paul's writings were Scripture. Wouldn't Peter just say that people twist Paul's writings as they do the Scriptures? Why would he use the word "other" if there wasn't an implication that Paul's letters were among the Scriptures? Scholars pretty much universally accept that this is the meaning of the text. You will have to explain your rationale more fully as it seems it is not the majority view throughout church history.

[SIZE=medium]It is especially interesting that Peter writes of the distortion of Paul’s letters along with “the other Scriptures.” The implication is that the letters of Paul were already regarded as Scripture at the time Peter wrote.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Allen Black and Mark C. Black, 1 & 2 Peter, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 1998), 2 Pe 3:16.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Peter places the epistles of Paul on the same level as the Old Testament. He expresses not only his personal evaluation of Paul’s letters, but also the thinking of the Christian community of that day.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, vol. 16, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 346.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Scriptures may also be expressed as “holy writings.” The phrase as they do with the other scriptures can be expressed in many languages as “as they do with other parts of the holy writings.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Daniel C. Arichea and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on the Letter from Jude and the Second Letter from Peter, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 165.[/SIZE]
Jack, you said,

It's spiritually healthy to agree to disagree as you're already aware! However here, not only makes sense, but agree. I just wasn't clear on the "interpretation" part. I strrongly feel, like Daniel, John, and others, Paul at times penned down (God the Author) things he didn't even understand - penned the "Text" minus the interpretation, eg, the "Parable of the Sower" still needs an valid interpretation from the Text. I bumped into the ol' illumination routine awhile back, and can only say from my view that the Text needs an interpretation otherswise it'll result in Text with Text ends in Pretext sort of thing, ie, Text without Context is Pretext. Thus when the context interprets the context = an intrepretation with the Holy Spirit without any modern type of illmination - no supernatural aid, ie, only via the Word does God the Holy Spirit interpret, and speak to us.

Not that I'm correct, only an opinion for sure!

Sure, I understand this to be just a kind exploration of ideas by brothers in Christ :). I guess what I would understand "interpretation" to mean in Peter's letter is that the content of the revelation was not up to the whims of the author. The authors of Scripture did not meditate on their naval and then start writing what they "felt" like God was saying to them. The content of what they wrote was fully directed by the Holy Spirit so that they were not interpreting things based on their own opinion, but the words they used were purely coming across as the very words of God. Now, this does not mean they understood all they wrote and all of its implications (although Jesus seems to give David much more credit about what he "foresaw" than most contemporary scholars!). I think Peter is simply trying to say that the Scripture themselves are the product of the hand of God, not the hand of the men who wrote them. I don't think this has much to do with what the authors or the audience understood as it is about God's supreme guidance in the penning of the Scriptures. I don't think Peter has more than this in mind here.

I agree that the text needs an interpretation. This interpretation is dependent upon the context for correct understanding. You see, I think your concerns speak AGAINST the doctrine of illumination. Why go about studying the context of a passage or the Greek language if we come to a proper interpretation through illumination rather than studying the text itself? One would think that no study is needed if one truly is dependent upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Surely the Holy Spirit does not need your study in order to illuminate you, correct? This is my point. The text is inspired and the more we understand the text as it was written, the more fully we will understand the heart and mind of God. This understanding comes through an inspired text we study, not some illuminated understanding that is supernaturally dropped in our heads. The Scriptures speak of no such need to pray and receive a supernatural understanding. Furthermore, if this is true, then there is only one illumined interpretation. Are you ready to say that only one denomination is illumined while all others are not? Surely the Holy Spirit is not illuminating people with contradictory doctrines, so only one could be say to be guided by the Spirit in their understanding while all others are in the dark. I find this to be unacceptable and does not promote a humble and healthy exploration of the inspired Word.

You pointed to the parable of the sower as a potential argument for need of such supernatural understanding. I think what we have in these texts is the opposite of illumination. It seems to me that what we have here is a divine act that prohibits understanding rather than one that allows for it. A phenomenal book on this subject is "We Become What We Worship" by GK Beale. In it, he convincingly argues that Isaiah's prophecies are about God's verdict to make people like what they are determined to worship. The Israelites were determined to worship deaf and dumb idols in continual rejection of God's word to them. As a result, his judgment was to make them like the idols they worshipped. They would become like "stiff-necked calves" and would be deaf and dumb like the wood and stone they were determined to worship.

So, I think what we have here is not about God picking and choosing who he will allow to understand his word through divine illumination. Rather, what we have is God's judgment on those who continually resist and rebell against his clearly understood commands and their determination to serve false gods. They would be made spiritually blind and hard because their refusal to accept what was clearly proclaimed. I think Jesus is implying that the Jewish leaders had made their traditions an idol and were refusing to listen to God through the preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus. Thus, his preaching would act as a form of judgment for their hard-heartedness and idolatry. This is not about God picking and choosing whom he will illumine while leaving everyone else in the dark. Quite the opposite.
 

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
I really appreciated your response so I can see moreso where you're coming from agreeing to agree with most, miraculously. thank you again my brother!

If we had inspired non-interpretive, inerrent, and infallible translated Texts before us then I would fully agree to agree with you trusting the interpretations of our diverse to extremely diverse denoms./non-denoms. However from my view only the original perfectly inspired Autographs meet the former criteria which we no longer have. Thus I strongly feel all must individually interpret going from the ancient languages forward to the English, and not backwards from the English back to the ancient languages as pervasively done today, yet a good thing is also learning from our diverse denominations, Forums, and etc. for example.

I think it has more to do with when one bumps into the Truth and doesn't have an agape for that truth is at the core of where we are at today as Christians IIThess.2:10b). I know I don't have that Truth, however I have a tremendous agape for the Cross as you do.

For example you won't find an interpretation of the "Parable of the Sower" anywhere that I'm aware of anyway today as different types of hearing the Word finds regarding the Kingdom of God, not that I have the valid interpretation, ie, I undressed this Parable going from the ancient languages forward long ago not that I have it correct.

Thank you again,

Old Jack's opinion only, ie, not the Truth.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree with you that the autographs were the inspired texts and textual criticism and knowledge of the early languages are incredibly valuable for trying to discern what those early autographs contained. I think we have a very high degree of certainty of what those autographs contained. Therefore, our aim is to study the texts in their contexts to understand what was revealed through revelation. Our aim is not to receive divinely implanted illumination into Scriptures that have veiled meanings.
 

Martin W.

Active Member
Jan 16, 2009
817
37
28
70
Winnipeg Canada
shturt678 said:
Question: Was God the Holy Spirit the Author of the Bible translations, or only the original Biblical 66 Book's Autographs which we no longer have?

Old curious Jack
God was the author of the original manuscripts , which of course we no longer have

The manuscript copies were made by scribes , it was their whole life and career , and they aimed for nothing less than 100% accuracy

Our modern phrase ... "dot your i's and cross your t's " comes from the scribes recording every "jot and tittle "

Especially the Old Testament , every Hebrew letter has a corresponding number , and the end of every line it was totaled up , and then all the lines on the page are totaled up , and the grand total has to be exactly the same as the original , or the scribe burned the scroll and started from scratch

The dead sea scroll of Isaiah was 1000 years older than any previous copies we had , and the accuracy was astounding.

Our modern translations are not "inspired" per say , but most of them were done by honest men who wanted to convert the original message to our common language.

There are a few discrepancies here and there , but you will find the translators try their best to give their (different) reasons for their versions , it is an open discussion and nobody is trying to pull a fast one.

Our modern bibles have not been translated "thousands of times" .... that is a false statement made by unbelievers who do not know what they are talking about , modern translators all go back to the original 2500 or so manuscript copies from antiquity ,

Summary .... our modern 14 or so translations are highly accurate , and we can refer to each of them any time we want to form our own opinion .
 

Chopper

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
25
1
0
83
Greenfield, Massachusetts
shturt678 said:
You hit the ball out of the ballpark! :)

Us ol' Christian coots have to stick together - excellent response! Younger ones rightfully moving up in paygrades. Ever give much thought to why translations are so extremely interpretive just by default of being translations, ie, noting also the original perfectly inspired inerrant, and infallible Autographs were even interpretive to a degree?

Old Jack - sorry, tried to lighten the bold, but my PC not responding so well.
The strange element in translations, is that the Greek language, as you probably already know, is a pictorial language. Therefore in order to make sense of a particular word so that the reader could understand it, the writers used many words to interpret that word. This is where I find a major problem with translations. Personally, I don't pick them apart, I think that's immature. I pick a translation that suits the way I converse. The KJV will always be a favorite, as well as the ESV.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Chopper said:
The strange element in translations, is that the Greek language, as you probably already know, is a pictorial language. Therefore in order to make sense of a particular word so that the reader could understand it, the writers used many words to interpret that word. This is where I find a major problem with translations. Personally, I don't pick them apart, I think that's immature. I pick a translation that suits the way I converse. The KJV will always be a favorite, as well as the ESV.
Agreed, and being bilingual (English/French), I can attest to that. I tend to appreciate modern English translation as they are done by credentialed scholars who know much more than I do about this skill. J.B. Phillips translated the way I understood and talked. His is still my favorite translation. I do like the ESV and use it more these days than ever before. Just don't like the language of the KJV, and I also don't like Shakespeare!
 

shturt678

New Member
Feb 9, 2013
970
23
0
82
South Point, Hawaii (Big Island)
Thank you folks for not only caring, but excellent responses from my view where in no way am I going to agree to disagree on these responses at this moment...good job my brothers...not that I'm anybody for sure or that I have the "Truth." And that's the "Truth."

Old Jack's back from a long day at the hospitals (two hospitals, for others...home posting tomorrow. Appreciate each of you.

btw I'm also partial to the A.V., however use the ASV of 1901, ASV of post 1936, YLT, R.V., and RSV Interlinear....agape the free online Young's Analytical Concordance & my Hermann Cremer's Lexicon along with my Perschbacher's Lex. with it's tables of Paradigms with explanations for openers.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Wormwood said:
StanJ,

I am having trouble understanding how you can interpret 2 Peter 3:16 as not asserting Paul's writings were Scripture. Wouldn't Peter just say that people twist Paul's writings as they do the Scriptures? Why would he use the word "other" if there wasn't an implication that Paul's letters were among the Scriptures? Scholars pretty much universally accept that this is the meaning of the text. You will have to explain your rationale more fully as it seems it is not the majority view throughout church history.
I'm not interpreting anything Wormwood, just reading. If Peter thought of Paul's writings as scripture he would have used the word. He didn't. He used writings/letters for Paul's works. It is a distinction and I for one do think that because all words are important in scripture, we should not insinuate anything into it that it does not say.
I don't know about the universality of my views, but I have read a few that concur with what I read. It only makes sense given Paul was speaking to Timothy about the OT/Torah before he made his comment about ALL scripture. To Paul, scripture would have been what he told Timothy it was.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
I'm not interpreting anything Wormwood, just reading. If Peter thought of Paul's writings as scripture he would have used the word. He didn't. He used writings/letters for Paul's works. It is a distinction and I for one do think that because all words are important in scripture, we should not insinuate anything into it that it does not say.
I don't know about the universality of my views, but I have read a few that concur with what I read. It only makes sense given Paul was speaking to Timothy about the OT/Torah before he made his comment about ALL scripture. To Paul, scripture would have been what he told Timothy it was.
I understand your position. I would just personally say I do not find it convincing. Yes, the word "writings" here is the word γραφὰς. This word is always translated as or implied to be the Scriptures or holy writings in the NT. The word is used 50x in the NT and the ESV translates it "Scriptures" in 49 of the occurrences (some examples are: Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:24; Luke 4:21; John 5:39, etc.). The only place it is translated as "writings" in the ESV is Romans 16:26 which is translated "prophetic writings." This is clearly referring to Scripture as well. So in my estimation, it is more of an insinuation to argue that this isn't referring to holy, inspired writings since it would be the only such usage in all of the NT.

Moreover, I think contextually, "Scripture" is clearly what is meant. Why would Peter be concerned about false teachers twisting other "writings" if those writings are uninspired or were not considered authoritative at the time? Would Peter be concerned if people were twisting casual letters that were not of any real significance? Even if he was concerned about this, why would he write this in a letter that is clearly speaking about false teachers who follow the path of Balaam and lead people to destruction by bringing the truth into disrepute? I think the very obvious context is that Peter is claiming that the false teachers who are twisting the authoritative writings about Jesus, which he knows to be true as an eyewitness (2 Peter 1:16-19), are the same as the false prophets who led Israel astray in ancient times.

Finally, I agree that the primary use of the term "Scripture" in the NT is in reference to the OT. However, there is abundant evidence that even while the NT was being penned, there were letters that the church saw to be authoritative and inspired...and these are mentioned in the NT itself as Scripture. Again, this is not simply an isolated opinion, but one that most scholars who have studied these texts contextually and linguistically would validate.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The strange element in translations, is that the Greek language, as you probably already know, is a pictorial language. Therefore in order to make sense of a particular word so that the reader could understand it, the writers used many words to interpret that word. This is where I find a major problem with translations. Personally, I don't pick them apart, I think that's immature. I pick a translation that suits the way I converse. The KJV will always be a favorite, as well as the ESV.
Chopper, I appreciate this post very much! In my limited experience, both Hebrew (and associated languages) as well as Greek have a much larger semantic range that our modern English. (As an aside, I find this to be the primary component of the "dumbing down" of language these days where we look for such precision...) This manifests in things such as numbers attached to words, certain images conjured up, and a greater range of overall meaning.

It's just theory on my part, but I think the reason we find the KJV so poetic, memorable and even mystical is because the English of the day had greater semantic range. I do not have enough knowledge to prove this, but this aspect and better rhythm explains why most of us tend to memorize the KJV Psalms in particular. I still find pleasure in reading the KJV and, to a lesser extent, the NKJV over and above even the ESV. I really love how the HCSB, for instance, handles the New Testament, but it can grind the Psalms down to pithy and unpleasurable lines.

I've also enjoyed reading the ASV and RSV as of late. I only have a hard copy of the latter.

I find the depth of the KJV to contain more of the original literary devices as well that get lost in translation. (Sorry for the pun!)


Finally, I agree that the primary use of the term "Scripture" in the NT is in reference to the OT. However, there is abundant evidence that even while the NT was being penned, there were letters that the church saw to be authoritative and inspired...and these are mentioned in the NT itself as Scripture. Again, this is not simply an isolated opinion, but one that most scholars who have studied these texts contextually and linguistically would validate.
Valuable points as always, Wormwood! It's easy to get the perspective that these letters were part of more letters that were all widely read and then finally whittled down because the right folks liked them or they said the proper things. It would seem that there are statements here and there to the validity of their status as well be it in the form of Paul writing more generally or mentions in other books. It would seem that even from Paul's treatment of the second letters that he anticipated that the first was widely read.

In closing, the portion where I find trouble is in jumping from the TR to the CT manuscripts. In all honesty, they are not that far apart. However, does on trust the received tradition of the church or modern scholars more? Both have very valid and convincing arguments. Both have their question marks.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Wormwood said:
I understand your position. I would just personally say I do not find it convincing. Yes, the word "writings" here is the word γραφὰς. This word is always translated as or implied to be the Scriptures or holy writings in the NT. The word is used 50x in the NT and the ESV translates it "Scriptures" in 49 of the occurrences (some examples are: Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:24; Luke 4:21; John 5:39, etc.). The only place it is translated as "writings" in the ESV is Romans 16:26 which is translated "prophetic writings." This is clearly referring to Scripture as well. So in my estimation, it is more of an insinuation to argue that this isn't referring to holy, inspired writings since it would be the only such usage in all of the NT.

Moreover, I think contextually, "Scripture" is clearly what is meant. Why would Peter be concerned about false teachers twisting other "writings" if those writings are uninspired or were not considered authoritative at the time? Would Peter be concerned if people were twisting casual letters that were not of any real significance? Even if he was concerned about this, why would he write this in a letter that is clearly speaking about false teachers who follow the path of Balaam and lead people to destruction by bringing the truth into disrepute? I think the very obvious context is that Peter is claiming that the false teachers who are twisting the authoritative writings about Jesus, which he knows to be true as an eyewitness (2 Peter 1:16-19), are the same as the false prophets who led Israel astray in ancient times.

Finally, I agree that the primary use of the term "Scripture" in the NT is in reference to the OT. However, there is abundant evidence that even while the NT was being penned, there were letters that the church saw to be authoritative and inspired...and these are mentioned in the NT itself as Scripture. Again, this is not simply an isolated opinion, but one that most scholars who have studied these texts contextually and linguistically would validate.
Sorry, I'm confused...the Greek word is ἐπιστολή (epistolē), and as far as I can determine, based on the following link; http://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/epistole , means letters or epistles. It is only used 24 times.
Now 'scripture', from the Greek word γραφή (graphē), is used 50 times, as scripture or writings, but I only see 'writings' in Matt 26:56. http://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/graphe
Seeing as it is used with prophets here, it would properly be considered as scriptures within the normal definition. I don't see Rom 16:26 using writings in Mounce, but it does show in the NIV. In any case both would support "scripture" as normally accepted, as it is associated with OT prophets. Keep in mind however that not ALL OT prophets, wrote Holy Scripture.
I don't dispute Peter's use of scripture where he does, he just doesn't use it where you are implying it is meant scripture when Peter writes letters.
As I said, I have read scholars who don't view this as Peter calling Paul's writings scriptures, because he doesn't, and Paul was indeed referring to the OT/Torah when he was instructing Timothy.