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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
21
18
54
Popular Days
Jul 15
20
Jul 2
20
Jul 11
20
Jul 5
15
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 18 posts
chockfull 21 posts
Infoabsorption 18 posts
TLC 54 posts
Popular Days
Jul 15 2018
20 posts
Jul 2 2018
20 posts
Jul 11 2018
20 posts
Jul 5 2018
15 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Dispensationalism is a man-made, private interpretation of “ALL scripture”, DEAD doctrine, based upon early 19th century textual and critical evidence which relied completely upon the latest 16th cent
DontWorryBeHappy
Hi Taxidev! imho, the entire “Biblical” and doctrinal underpinning Of TWIt’s private interpretation is based on the FALSE PREMISE (logical fallacy) Of dispensationalism. This was actually a world
chockfull
So on the education dig I know that's pointed towards someone on this thread, but I think criticizing any of us on our education background is a bit obnoxious. I mean my theological education was 4
waysider
Regardless, whether or not this means anything to you does not make the argument moot.
Did you take the PFAL class?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
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:
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...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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.
However, this:
...is another matter altogether. What criteria do you suppose anyone is going to use to think or say what is "profitable writings"?
Edited by TLCAlthough, 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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That makes three of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
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?
No?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.