Zid, do you really think that the verse from 2 Timothy is referring to itself as scripture? Even if it was (it is not and there is no reason to believe that it is), how does that include any letters that weren't even part of the bible until - oh - whatever century men put the bible together and called it one book?
But of course that's not the only place that the bible writers referred to the particuar book that THEY were writing at that particular time, as being of "divine" inspiration or as the "inalterable word of god"...
Yeah, like the prophets and the laws. Things that might actually have been considered scripture at the time.
Yet even so... none of them claim to be the inalterable word of god. Just the opposite for that matter, for the reasons I listed above. Did you read those? You don't put a warning not to tamper with something, if it cannot be tampered with. (and even that is referring to the book of revelation, Zid... not even the whole bible, because again... there was no whole bible)
And as I said, the fact that the bible writers THEMSELVES were attempting to treat the bible as a cohesive whole, means that their own words condemn the bible as supposedly "whole", AND to be taken "literally"...
You have no proof of that. It doesnt' even make sense. Otherwise, where are all the others letters that were written? All the other gospels? Again, there was no 'bible' when the gospels and letters were written. That came later, when men decided to make it one book and claim that it is an 'all or nothing', inerrant, inspired book. A claim that has no basis. A lie that many people still believe, despite that very book making claims to the contrary. (lying pen of the scribes, woe to you scribes, the warning in revelation... the only book along with the prophets that claims to have come from God/be inspired of God) Also, nothing in the bible says to take anything literally or not. Much of it is not literal.
Where are you getting this info? From what men of religion says? A source you know not to trust, but you trust that they were right about this? The evidence shows otherwise.
One quick piece of that evidence: Luke never says that his book is inspired. He says that he conducted interviews and research to write his accounting of the life and death and resurrection of Christ to Theo (can't remember the rest of the name)... just as others had also done.
Peace,
tammy