by Comatose 269 Replies latest watchtower bible
tec-
I just came across this thread:
and I see you use the same circular arguments on most subjects. You're a broken record.
tec:
Have you seen me criticize a person for rejecting the bible?
"criticize" may have not been the best word for me to use. But, you do attack a person't intelligence if they have a differing view than yours:
tec:
Of course not... because then you might actually have to think
So, I guess in your view, Tammy, personal jabs are acceptable in comparison to criticism.
ADCMS, also 2 Tim 3:16 is specifically talking about the Torah, not the New Testament in any way. The NT was compiled and cannonized around 300 years after 2 Tim was even written. Most fundamentalist Christians reason that God's might makes it right-- sorry but might does not make right, even with God.
Myelaine you ignored my very relevant question. Why did god demand the death of infants but allow 32k virgins to be kept for the pleasure of the fighting men AND priests?
tec:
Not everything written is scripture
Scripture = only what you personally agree with.
----
Emery:
sorry but might does not make right, even with God.
Did I argue it did?
2 Tim 3:16 is specifically talking about the Torah, not the New Testament in any way
Proof please.
ADCMS, I am in agreement with you when I said "Sorry but might does not make right, even with God." I was just adding my 2 cents haha.
Several fundamentalist bible scholars agree that 2 Tim 3:16 was not in anyway being attributed to the NT, verse 15 gives it's context, here are 2 scholars to consider.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the New Testament (Commentary):
Verse 15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures. That is, the Old Testament; for the New Testament was not then written. See Barnes ".
The mother of Timothy was a pious Hebrewess, and regarded it as one of the duties of her religion to train her son in the careful knowledge of the word of God. This was regarded by the Hebrews as an important duty of religion, and there is reason to believe that it was commonly faithfully performed. The Jewish writings abound with lessons on this subject. Rabbi Judah says, "The boy of five years of age ought to apply to the study of the sacred Scriptures." Rabbi Solomon, on , says, "When the boy begins to talk, his father ought to converse with him in the sacred language, and to teach him the law; if he does not do that he seems to bury him." See numerous instances referred to in Wetstein, in loc. The expression used by Paul—from a child, (apo brefouv) does not make it certain at precisely what age Timothy was first instructed in the Scriptures, though it would denote an early age.
Verse 16. All Scripture. This properly refers to the Old Testament, and should not be applied to any part of the New Testament, unless it can be shown that that part was then written, and was included under the general name of the Scriptures. . But it includes the whole of the Old Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all inspired. If now it can be proved that Paul himself was an inspired man, this settles the question as to the inspiration of the Old Testament.
Is given by inspiration of God. All this is expressed in the original by one word yeopneustov theopneustos. This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, God-inspired—from yeov, God, and pnew, to breathe, to breathe out. The idea of breathing upon, or breathing into the soul, is that which the word naturally conveys. Thus God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life, and thus the Saviour breathed on his disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost,". The idea seems to have been, that the life was in the breath, and that an intelligent spirit was communicated with the breath. The expression was used among the Greeks, and a similar one was employed by the Romans. Plutarch ed. B. ix, p. 683, 9. touv oneirouv touv yeopneustouv; Phocylid. 121. thv de yeopneustou sofihv logov estin aristov. Perhaps, however, this is not an expression of Phocylides, but of the pseudo Phocylides. So it is understood by Bloomfield. Cicero, pro Arch., 8. poetam—quasi divino quodam spiritu infiari. The word does not occur in the Septuagint, but is found in Josephus, C.. "The Scriptures of the prophets who were taught according to the inspiration of God, kata t hn epipnoian thn apo tou yeou" In regard to the manner of inspiration, and to the various questions which have been started as to its nature, nothing can he learned from the use of this word. It asserts a fact—that the Old Testament was composed under a Divine influence, which might be represented by breathing on one, and so imparting life. But the language must be figurative, for God does not breathe; though the fair inference is that those Scriptures are as much the production of God, or as much to be traced to him as life is. . The question as to the degree of inspiration, and whether it extends to the words of Scripture, and how far the sacred writers were left to the exercise of their own faculties, is foreign to the design of these Notes. All that is necessary to be held is, that the sacred writers were kept from error on those subjects which were matters of their own observation, or which pertained to memory; and that there were truths imparted to them directly by the Spirit of God, which they never could have arrived at by the unaided exercise of their own minds. Intro. to Isaiah and Job.
And is profitable. It is useful, it is adapted to give instruction, to administer reproof, etc. If "all" Scripture is thus valuable, then we are to esteem no part of the Old Testament as worthless. There is no portion of it, even now, which may not be fitted, in certain circumstances, to furnish us valuable lessons, and, consequently, no part of it which could be spared from the sacred canon. There is no part of the human body which is not useful in its place, and no part of it which can be spared without sensible loss.
For doctrine. For teaching or communicating instruction. See Barnes " ".
Adam Clarke's Commentary:
Verse 16. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" - This sentence is not well translated; the original pasa grafh qeokneustov wfilimov prov didaskalian, k. t. l. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, &c. The particle kai, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2 Tim. iii. 15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it.
The doctrine of the inspiration of the sacred writings has been a subject of much discussion, and even controversy, among Christians. There are two principal opinions on the subject:
1. That every thought and word were inspired by God, and that the writer did nothing but merely write as the Spirit dictated. 2. That God gave the whole matter, leaving the inspired writers to their own language; and hence the great variety of style and different modes of expression. But as I have treated this subject at large in my Introduction to the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, I must refer the reader to that work.
and I see you use the same circular arguments on most subjects. You're a broken record.
And if i was not saying the same thing... would you not tell me that I am inconsistent and contradictory?
Lose/lose, right?
"criticize" may have not been the best word for me to use. But, you do attack a person't intelligence if they have a differing view than yours:
Really?
First... it has nothing to do with whether someone has a different view than my own.
Second... look at what YOU said, to which i was responding TO:
absurdity of your claims
And, the truly sad part is, they haven't thought about it enough to realize what they're doing, but will argue their position ad nauseum.
Is it okay for you to make personal jabs, but not for someone to respond to you as you are speaking to them? (there are more jabs that you have made at me and others, if you would like me to list them out for you)
I did not respond like that to hurt you... but in the hopes that you would see what YOU are doing. That perhaps, even as others do not always think things through... you are doing that very thing in this instance, yourself.
I don't think you are lacking in intelligence. I DO, however, think you have not thought this one through... perhaps because this criticism you have against those who believe in Christ and God, but don't believe the bible is inerrant... is based upon it.
Peace,
tammy
Emery-
Thanks for the info. I was actually about to post the same quote from Clarke's Commentary. What I find fascinating is that Christians will reject the portions of the OT that make them uncomfortable, even though Adam Clarke says, "The apostle is here, beyond all controversy , speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration".
Then the Christian will also dismiss the NT aspects they disagree with, despite the fact that Clarke says, "all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old".
Some people choose to dismiss the entire Bible, including the accounts of Jesus, based on the arguments that Christians themselves present. If both the OT and NT came into existence by the same source of inspiration, as Clarke says, then rejecting some of it is in effect rejecting all of it, whether the Christian is willing to admit that fact ot not.
Some really like the accounts about Jesus, so they accept everything the Bible says about him. But, by their own admission, since much of those same NT verses can be dismissed as unreliable, then there's really no reason to put faith in any of it, as it is coming from exactly the same source.
I don't think you are lacking in intelligence. I DO, however, think you have not thought this one through.
following up a previous jab with yet another one.
Nice going!
this criticism you have against those who believe in Christ and God, but don't believe the bible is inerrant... is based upon it.
You believe in Christ and God but reject (at least the parts you don't like) the very book that tells you about Christ and God.
And I'm the one that has not thought this through?
It properly means, God-inspired—from yeov, God, and pnew, to breathe, to breathe out.
Yes. God inspired. Given in spirit. The written word of something that has been given BY the Spirit to someone in the spirit, to speak and give to others.
Many of the prophets spoke of things that they heard or saw while IN the spirit. Same as in Revelation.
Not every writing ... old or new testament... makes this claim. Some books are based on investigation and report or recording... such as the gospel of Luke. Or Acts. Or the recordings of the history of the Israelites and their kings/ genealogies.
Peace,
tammy
You think it is a jab to tell someone that you don't think they have thought something through?
Well, some of you atheists really DO attack us believers then, lol. All the time. Simply in speaking to us ; )
Peace,
tammy
