'All Scripture'

[Martin Marprelate]

On the 'Would you Stay? 3' thread, @Davyboy wrote:

2nd – “All” in the Greek is PASA, and it actually means “Every”. In the Bible, when Scripture is used in the singular it refers to an individual passage or book, not the whole Bible. So this means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would also mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even you would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless you argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

@Davyboy should take more care as to which source he plagiarizes.

'It is not true that the absence of the article compels us to adopt the translation 'every Scripture.' The word 'Scripture can be definite even without the article (1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20). Similarly, Pas Israel means 'all Israel' (Romans 11:26). But even if the rendering 'every Scripture' is accepted, the resultant meaning would not differ greatly, for if every Scripture is inspired, all Scripture must be inspired also' [William Hendricksen: New Testament Commentary on 2 Timothy].

So unless Davyboy is going to claim that Pas Israel means 'every Israel,' his source is up the creek. Also, his source fails to note that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims that the Scripture is sufficient-- 'That the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.'

 

[atpollard]

Daveboy makes a quasi-valid point among all of the nonsense in that a Pauline letter referencing "all Scripture" would likely have been understood by the original readers as being all of the Old Testament (as now finally understood through the Gospel of Christ and the personal teaching of the Apostles). This would have only later been expanded to include what we view as the New Testament as well.

On the other hand, it is known that by the dawn of the Second Century, the four Gospels had been gathered together and circulated as a single book and the letters of Paul (plus Hebrews) had been gathered together and circulated as a second book and these two books served the early churches as our modern Bible does today. All of this happened while there were still people living in places like Antioch who could remember which books and letters the Apostles personally delivered and taught from. So we have little doubt of the authorship or authority of the New Testament as Scripture ... unless one is prepared to reject everything taught in the Gospels and all of the reported miracles authenticating the Apostles.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not disagreeing with you at all, @atpollard, but I think we can go further than that:

In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul declares, 'For the Scripture says,' and then quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 together. So in around 63 AD, Paul regarded Luke's Gospel as Scripture and expected Timothy to identify the quotation.
At around the same time, or a little later, Peter also identifies Paul's letters as being Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The New Testament Scriptures were accepted as such pretty much as soon as they were written.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Another thought: Paul certainly believed that His writings were the word of God.
1 Corinthians 14:37. 'If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.'

 

[JonShaff]

Another thought: Paul certainly believed that His writings were the word of God.
1 Corinthians 14:37. 'If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.'

Excellent point. This confirms that the Apostles knew they were writing Scripture and expected the writings to have the Authority of God within them.

 

[Davyboy]

On the 'Would you Stay? 3' thread, @Davyboy wrote:

@Davyboy should take more care as to which source he plagiarizes.

'It is not true that the absence of the article compels us to adopt the translation 'every Scripture.' The word 'Scripture can be definite even without the article (1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20). Similarly, Pas Israel means 'all Israel' (Romans 11:26). But even if the rendering 'every Scripture' is accepted, the resultant meaning would not differ greatly, for if every Scripture is inspired, all Scripture must be inspired also' [William Hendricksen: New Testament Commentary on 2 Timothy].

So unless Davyboy is going to claim that Pas Israel means 'every Israel,' his source is up the creek. Also, his source fails to note that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims that the Scripture is sufficient-- 'That the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.'

OH NO!" not you too. That just hurts my feelings. (LOL) It’s true that I plagiarize, And….

Seems like the statement about 2 Timothy concerned you, well it should STILL concern you because there are many NON-CATHOLICS that believe that 2 Timothy’s true meaning is “every” and not “all”. And remember these people have no interest in defending the Catholic position; they are just being true to the evidence. Here is just one example:

The three inappropriate translations in the KJV of this verse are:

1) The Greek word "pasa" should in this verse be correctly translated as "EVERY" and NOT as "ALL".

2) In our present age the Greek noun "graphe" should be translated as "WRITING" and NOT as "SCRIPTURE". The word "scripture" is an interpretation and not a translation of the Greek word "graphe".

3) The Greek adjective "theopneustos" should have been translated as the adjective "GOD-BREATHED" and NOT as the clause "IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD"

The translation "ALL God-breathed writing (or scripture) is profitable for ..." at least allows for the possibility to try to translate this as an affirmative statement that is all-inclusive, like "all scripture is God-breathed and it is profitable for ...". This (translating "pasa" as "all" in this verse) is really needed as a prerequisite for claiming that "theopneustos" is a predicate adjective.

But the translation "EVERY God-breathed writing (or scripture) is profitable for ..." very clearly implies that there are indeed writings (or scriptures) that are NOT "God-breathed". And THAT is a possibility that is simply not acceptable to certain people. So while many of us may not immediately grasp this significant distinction between here rendering "pasa" as "every" versus rendering "pasa" as "all",we need to understand that there is a very clear reason why so many people argue very vociferously against the translation "every". They NEED this verse to say "ALL scripture" to uphold their doctrinal position, even when their position is contradicted by the rules of biblical Greek grammar.

Note! It is the presence of the adjective "theopneustos" that creates this particular controversy. Without this adjective the argument over "ALL scripture" versus "EVERY scripture" would disappear. Without additional qualifications "all scripture" and "every scripture" could refer to the identical body of writing. But when we introduce the adjective "God-breathed" into this mix, THEN there is suddenly a big distinction between these two expressions.

If you want to know where I got this, just Google search it like JonShaff does. I made it easy!
He dissects and completely shreds the strongest verse a protestant has to offer for support to sola scriptura. Yet again, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not prove Sola Scriptura.

It is only the truth that can make us free (John 8:32). Will you accept the truth regarding 2 Timothy 3:16, or will you remain shackled to a doctrine that was established very deviously by a succession of theologians at the time of the Protestant Reformation, starting with Erasmus, followed by Beza, and culminating with Whittingham?

 

[utilyan]

On the 'Would you Stay? 3' thread, @Davyboy wrote:

@Davyboy should take more care as to which source he plagiarizes.

'It is not true that the absence of the article compels us to adopt the translation 'every Scripture.' The word 'Scripture can be definite even without the article (1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20). Similarly, Pas Israel means 'all Israel' (Romans 11:26). But even if the rendering 'every Scripture' is accepted, the resultant meaning would not differ greatly, for if every Scripture is inspired, all Scripture must be inspired also' [William Hendricksen: New Testament Commentary on 2 Timothy].

So unless Davyboy is going to claim that Pas Israel means 'every Israel,' his source is up the creek. Also, his source fails to note that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims that the Scripture is sufficient-- 'That the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.'

Flawed reading comprehension.

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Scripture is PROFITABLE/HELPS -->teaching, reproof, correction, training.

Teaching, reproof, correction, training --> makes the man adequate and equipped for good works.

Difference between saying SCRIPTURE is PROFITABLE for teaching and SCRIPTURE IS the teaching.

He could have easily said Scripture IS teaching, is reproof, is correction, is the training.

HE DID NOT.

And none of this has to do with AUTHORITY, But for capacity of GOOD WORKS which most of you guys would swear is insignificant anyways.


A BLANKET is PROFITABLE for WARMTH, Blocking the wind, making a person comfortable, so that a man can be well rested and ready for WORK.


Does that mean a BLANKET is required to be well rested? NO. A heater can keep you warm, a house can block the wind, and a couch full of pillows can make you comfortable.

You need to PULL from the text not start with a philosophy and then try to find it and force it in the text.

 

[JonShaff]

You need to PULL from the text not start with a philosophy and then try to find it and force it in the text.

Right, Context says that it is Ordained of God for those who are prophesying to PREACH THE WORD--2 Timothy 4:1-3
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching

We have no authority in and of ourselves to exhort, reprove, rebuke, expound on doctrine, instruct in righteousness, etc.--it comes through the Word of God. The Word of God is our final AND ultimate authority. Unless, of course, you have a direct revelation of God--are you claiming you have that?

 

[utilyan]

Right, Context says that it is Ordained of God for those who are prophesying to PREACH THE WORD--2 Timothy 4:1-3
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching

We have no authority in and of ourselves to exhort, reprove, rebuke, expound on doctrine, instruct in righteousness, etc.--it comes through the Word of God. The Word of God is our final AND ultimate authority. Unless, of course, you have a direct revelation of God--are you claiming you have that?

In a world where WORD = WRITINGS ONLY, you would be correct. You are WRONG.

Again you are not allowing the scriptures to speak, You are forcing in the idea of "WRITINGS ONLY".


2 Corinthians 3

2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

4Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.


Here just the opposite it claims NOT WITH INK. And that GOD makes the CHRISTIAN adequate servant of the new covenant. Not the letter, not the ink, not on tablets of stone.

Yet some here would say Yes scripture is totally and always right, but its WRONG about Christians being adequate servant.

The false teaching is that WRITINGS are the SUPERIOR form of communication. And that God can only defend and protect "WRITINGS".


Which verse is true?

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, IGNORE, and instead open up a bible and do what it says ONLY.


Jesus Christ recognizes the AUTHORITY. His Jewish faith wasn't a false religion, But those in authority were corrupt, This doesn't negate the authority.

Finally to even recognize the bible you need someone else to pick the book out for you.

Give me your newest christian, let me put him in a room with thousands of gospels with fakes and forgeries and mistakes. He is not going to magically pick out the exact 66 books you got.

Philosophy FIRST, someone put the book in your hand and told you THIS IS the bible.

 

[JonShaff]

Philosophy FIRST, someone put the book in your hand and told you THIS IS the bible.

Let me simplify this for you--It was through the hearing of the Word of God was i born-again and gloriously saved. The Spirit of God testified to me that it was True. Not a man.

To your other points--It's YOUR philosophy that wants to lord over people with unbiblical authority. You are imposing your spiritual government into the Word of God. You want people to have lordship over other people because you are conditioned to do so through Roman Catholicism.

You quoted a verse about "leaders" in the "Seat of Moses"--their ministry was to expound and teach on the Writings of Moses--that's why Jesus said, "You should be doing what they are saying,"--doing what SCRIPTURE says to do.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not disagreeing with you at all, @atpollard, but I think we can go further than that:

In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul declares, 'For the Scripture says,' and then quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 together. So in around 63 AD, Paul regarded Luke's Gospel as Scripture and expected Timothy to identify the quotation.
At around the same time, or a little later, Peter also identifies Paul's letters as being Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The New Testament Scriptures were accepted as such pretty much as soon as they were written.

Yes, as by the end of the first century there were only 4 books not being universally accepted as scripture, and those were due to things such as 2 peter not sure if Apostle actually wrote it, hebrews, as some doubted paul wrote it, James, as some saw him teaching saved by law, and I believe revelation, due to some not seeing john as the author...

 

[Davyboy]

You quoted a verse about "leaders" in the "Seat of Moses"--their ministry was to expound and teach on the Writings of Moses--that's why Jesus said, "You should be doing what they are saying,"--doing what SCRIPTURE says to do.

I like how you say, “doing what SCRIPTURE says to do”. Yet nowhere in the verse has that listed. And it also doesn’t have recorded that the OT Bible Alone is read while they are on the seat. That is theory that you came up with to try to prove the Bible Alone.

 

[Yeshua1]

I like how you say, “doing what SCRIPTURE says to do”. Yet nowhere in the verse has that listed. And it also doesn’t have recorded that the OT Bible Alone is read while they are on the seat. That is theory that you came up with to try to prove the Bible Alone.

What other authority did God Himself give to us for spiritual doctrines and practices?

 

[JonShaff]

I like how you say, “doing what SCRIPTURE says to do”. Yet nowhere in the verse has that listed. And it also doesn’t have recorded that the OT Bible Alone is read while they are on the seat. That is theory that you came up with to try to prove the Bible Alone.

My pleasure...

First Example from Nehemiah 8:
8 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded Israel. 2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly of men and women and all who could hear with understanding on the first day of the seventh month. 3 Then he read from it in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate from morning until midday, before the men and women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.

4 So Ezra the scribe stood on a platform of wood...and when he opened it (the Law of Moses), all the people stood up. 6 And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God.

Then all the people answered, “Amen, Amen!” while lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground.

7 Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law; and the people stood in their place. 8 So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.

 

[Yeshua1]

Did God threoughout the Scriptures drive his people to the word of God, or to traditions of man?

 

[JonShaff]

I like how you say, “doing what SCRIPTURE says to do”. Yet nowhere in the verse has that listed. And it also doesn’t have recorded that the OT Bible Alone is read while they are on the seat. That is theory that you came up with to try to prove the Bible Alone.

Second example:

John 5
46If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”

 

[JonShaff]

I like how you say, “doing what SCRIPTURE says to do”. Yet nowhere in the verse has that listed. And it also doesn’t have recorded that the OT Bible Alone is read while they are on the seat. That is theory that you came up with to try to prove the Bible Alone.

Third Example

Luke 16
28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them so they will not also end up in this place of torment.’ 29But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let your brothers listen to them.’

 

[JonShaff]

I like how you say, “doing what SCRIPTURE says to do”. Yet nowhere in the verse has that listed. And it also doesn’t have recorded that the OT Bible Alone is read while they are on the seat. That is theory that you came up with to try to prove the Bible Alone.

Fourth Example....shotgun style from Bible Hub....

Luke 4:17
the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it was written:

John 5:45
Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope.

John 5:47
But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?"

Acts 15:21
For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

OH NO!" not you too. That just hurts my feelings. (LOL) It’s true that I plagiarize, And….

Seems like the statement about 2 Timothy concerned you, well it should STILL concern you because there are many NON-CATHOLICS that believe that 2 Timothy’s true meaning is “every” and not “all”. And remember these people have no interest in defending the Catholic position; they are just being true to the evidence.

The people who try to blunt the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 are liberals. I imagine you are quoting one of them. The argument is
1. Wrong. I quoted (And acknowledged) William Hendricksen in my O.P. He was one of the foremost New Testament Scholars and an authority on Koine Greek. Also, you can look in any Greek dictionary and it will tell you that the word Pas means either 'all' or 'every.'But tell me, if it is all just an evil Protestant plot, why does the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible translate pasa graphe as 'all Scripture'?
2. Irrelevant. There is actually no real difference between 'all Scripture' and 'every Scripture.'

Here is just one example:

The three inappropriate translations in the KJV of this verse are:

1) The Greek word "pasa" should in this verse be correctly translated as "EVERY" and NOT as "ALL".

Dealt with above.

2) In our present age the Greek noun "graphe" should be translated as "WRITING" and NOT as "SCRIPTURE". The word "scripture" is an interpretation and not a translation of the Greek word "graphe".

Graphe is the main word that the N.T. uses to describe the O.T. Scriptures. e.g. Matthew 21:42; 22:49; John 5:39; Romans 1:2 and a great pile of others Your source, whoever he is, is completely wrong.

3) The Greek adjective "theopneustos" should have been translated as the adjective "GOD-BREATHED" and NOT as the clause "IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD"

I have no problem at all with 'God-breathed' as in the NIV translation, but 'given by inspiration of God' is also fine for reasons I'm sure you don't understand and I don't have the energy to explain.

Finally, putting your arguments in capitals DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. You are plagiarizing liberals whose whole objective is to destroy Christianity and you are being one of their 'useful idiots.'

 

[Adonia]

Excellent point. This confirms that the Apostles knew they were writing Scripture and expected the writings to have the Authority of God within them.

Thsis confirms no such thing. Where do you get that the "writings" have authority? While they may be authoritative, they by themselves do not wield any authority one bit. People wield authority, not the words on paper. All authority was given by God to Jesus Christ, a living breathing human being to act here on earth and Jesus Christ in turn gave that authority to the Apostles, who in turn gave that authority to those leaders , the Bishops of the newly forming Christian Church who came after them.

Look, the founder of your sect John Smyth used unilateral authority and came up with a new Christian doctrine that he gleamed from the Scriptures. The Scriptures did not just come up with this new doctrine on it's own, it came about from one man using authority, (unilateral, but authority nonetheless) to proclaim it.

Please tell me where Jesus said that this new Christian authority would reside in a collection of writings? Where is it? The gospels themselves were not written until the mid to late 1st century and they only gave us the testimony of Jesus Christ. The others were not collated until the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Now tell me, did these writings magically make themselves into a book, or was there some humans wielding authority somewhere who decided which ones should be included?

Authoritative and authority - there is a difference.