What is Scripture?

[Runningman]

Whatever you say, "lefty".

I see what you did there. You’re saying I’ll be with the goats on the left. You might deny it here, but we both know what you meant by that.

James 4:12
12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

Now you’re playing God and judging people. You’re playing a dangerous game. Repent.

 

[Runningman]

Well, we do know that the Lord revealed to Paul the mystery in which he wrote. God’s word equals scripture.

“God’s word” or “the word of God” is often used in reference to when God spoke to a prophet. The prophet then wrote down what they heard from God.

Which particular verse are you thinking of?

 

[Runningman]

this isn't circumstantial; it's textual evidence. i'm pointing out a word in the text that hasn't been explained how it can fit your interpretation of it.
"scripture" implies one, but "other scripture" is tacitly, specifically referring to more than one - with the first being an example exactly like the remainder.

you wouldn't say "God saved me & other Christians" without implying that you are part of the group 'Christians'
likewise why does Peter say that people twist Paul's epistles just like they do the other scripture?

if Peter means that people twist Paul's letters just like they also twist 'actual scripture' he has no reason i am aware of to use the word "other"


if making a case of, or finding import in one word bothers you, haven't you read things like Galatians 3:16? God doesn't say seeds but 'seed' singular?
or how about Hebrews 8:13? by saying "new" He makes the old obsolete? or Hebrews 9:16 - in the case of a testament there must be the death of the testator? or how about in Genesis 22 when Abraham is assured God will provide Himself a Lamb -- then when the angel stops Abraham's hand, he finds a goat?
i could mention the warning in Revelation 22:18 about adding or removing a word from the book, or how important to understanding Christophanies is the difference between "an" angel of the LORD vs. "The" Angel of the LORD -- but you see what i mean by now, right?

the word "other" happens to appear in Peter's epistle.
it must be explained, unless we're also just throwing Peter's words out as uninspired, therefore untrustworthy too


it's just a point you will have to find a way to work around, if your case is correct -- and brother, saying "that word doesn't matter" is not a sound argument. it's just not convincing. the word exists here; we have to find a reason for it. that's all.
if you have the right argument, then the right explanation should exist; we just have to find it -- and no, i do not accept "other doesn't actually mean other" as a valid explanation.

I say epistles mean letters which is what Peter called Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:-6. I say scripture refers to Old Testament writings. I have proof of that. You have evidence which is not the same thing as proof. Evidence is weak and not admissible as proof. Big difference.

Again, you’re saying Peter was implying Paul’s letters are scripture. That is false. Peter called Paul’s writings letters. Do you agree with that?

I am sticking strictly to what is written. I could start throwing warnings to your direction, too, but right now I don’t think that is necessary. If you’ll at some point accept that what you’re claiming has no proof in the Bible then you don’t really have anything to worry about.

When you understand you’re wrong on this point, which I believe you probably do because I know you’re a smart person, then persisting in your error is a problem. Not only that, you seem to be approving of those who are doing the same thing.

 

[Runningman]

@Runningman
i think the most logical ((perhaps the only logical)) path to arguing Paul's epistles are not 'scripture' is to say that Peter didn't know what he was talking about.

do you agree with that?

Peter called Paul’s writings letters in 2 Peter 3:16 so your question is invalid. However, Peter knows exactly what he’s talking about. You, on the other hand, don’t know what you’re taking about on this particular point. Sorry, not sorry.

I don’t have a problem with Paul’s writings being called letters and not scripture, do you?

 

[Runningman]

I agree with your last and very important statement ""Nowadays, Christians revere the New Testament as scripture, but in the early church there is no Biblical evidence Paul’s epistles were recognized as scripture"" I totally agree there. Personally , I take as scripture in the new testament; matthew, John (my favorite) and mark, also revelations, and some letters from the original 12, the rest, I have doubts as it contradicts the message of Jesus son of GOD in a big big way.

Blessings

JF

The part you quoted by me was my admittance that, as a Christian, I believe the New Testament are scriptures. Thanks for recognizing that and understanding what I’m saying. Others have gone off on a tangent and said I’m possessed by an unclean spirit, called me names, said I’m dangling over hell, said I’ve blasphemed God, said I need to repent, tried to slander my character by saying I’m mentally unstable.

All I can say is that when you stand on the truth it’s genuinely a threat to some people. You’ll notice in many of my threads, if you look at my profile, I often get a lot of attacks like that. I get attacked a lot here, but I’m happy anyway.

From my perspective, I see fruits of the Holy Spirit in your response; it’s gentle, patient, and has self-control.

 

[Live4Him3]

So, using the OP's "logic", I have some serious questions for everyone here:

Did the writers of the Old Testament scriptures know that they were writing scripture at that time?

Did the people who read their writings, prior to the time that the New Testament writers called the Old Testament writings "scripture", believe that they were reading scripture?

After all, in accordance with the OP's "logic", the word "scripture" only appears once in the entire Old Testament, and here is that instance:

"But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince." (Daniel 10:21)

What think ye?

Did Moses know that he was writing scripture?

Did the prophets know that they were writing scripture?

You should be able to guess my answers to these questions...

 

[Runningman]

So, using the OP's "logic", I have some serious questions for everyone here:

That isn’t my logic, rather it’s what the Bible says. Your “logic” is that that word “other” means Paul’s letters were scripture and you have one verse to prop up that rickety tower built on sand.

Did the writers of the Old Testament scriptures know that they were writing scripture at that time?

Yes I think they often knew they were prophesying, but not always.

See the below verses:
Exodus 17:14
Deuteronomy 17:18
Deuteronomy 27:3
Deuteronomy 27:8
Jeremiah 36:2

Just some examples.

Did the people who read their writings, prior to the time that the New Testament writers called the Old Testament writings "scripture", believe that they were reading scripture?

Jesus referred to the Old Testament writings as scripture to people who understood what that meant. Paul did the same thing.

After all, in accordance with the OP's "logic", the word "scripture" only appears once in the entire Old Testament, and here is that instance:

H3791 kâthâb is used 17 times in the Old Testament. I suggest you go look them up because I’m not doing all of your homework for you.

Furthermore, that’s a logical fallacy known as a red herring. It doesn’t prove what you’re claiming it does.

What think ye?

Did Moses know that he was writing scripture?

Did the prophets know that they were writing scripture?

You should be able to guess my answers to these questions...

That’s like asking if they knew they were writing when they were writing.

Scripture literally means “something written” according to the Hebrew word use for it.

Did they know what they were writing is from God? In some cases I think they did but other times they probably didn’t. I guess you are not a prophet, I don’t know for sure, but most likely I see you probably won’t understand that unless you experience it.

 

[posthuman]

I say epistles mean letters which is what Peter called Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:-6. I say scripture refers to Old Testament writings. I have proof of that. You have evidence which is not the same thing as proof. Evidence is weak and not admissible as proof. Big difference.

Again, you’re saying Peter was implying Paul’s letters are scripture. That is false. Peter called Paul’s writings letters. Do you agree with that?

I am sticking strictly to what is written. I could start throwing warnings to your direction, too, but right now I don’t think that is necessary. If you’ll at some point accept that what you’re claiming has no proof in the Bible then you don’t really have anything to worry about.

When you understand you’re wrong on this point, which I believe you probably do because I know you’re a smart person, then persisting in your error is a problem. Not only that, you seem to be approving of those who are doing the same thing.

Peter said people do to Paul's letters the same thing they do to "other scripture" as well.

You need to reconcile why he uses the word "other" here.

You have not done that thus far. You have pretended the word "other" isn't there.

 

[Live4Him3]

Did the writers of the Old Testament scriptures know that they were writing scripture at that time?

Yes that’s why they were writing it down. That’s obvious.

See the below verses:
Exodus 17:14
Deuteronomy 17:18
Deuteronomy 27:3
Deuteronomy 27:8
Jeremiah 36:2

Just some examples.

Huh?

If it's "obvious" that the writers of the Old Testament scriptures knew that they were writing scripture at that time because "that's why they were writing it down", then why isn't it equally as "obvious" in relation to the writers of the New Testament who were similarly "writing it down"?

This should be good...

 

[posthuman]

Peter called Paul’s writings letters in 2 Peter 3:16

That's not in question.
But it's not the only thing Peter has to say.

your question is invalid. However, Peter knows exactly what he’s talking about

Peter said "other scriptures" not "scriptures"

Since you agree Peter knows what he is saying, my question is 100% valid and thus far has not been addressed.

Why does Peter say "other"?

 

[Runningman]

Peter said people do to Paul's letters the same thing they do to "other scripture" as well.

You need to reconcile why he uses the word "other" here.

You have not done that thus far. You have pretended the word "other" isn't there.

I haven’t pretended anything. This is from my OP:

“The “other scriptures” are Old Testament writings”

The word other means the rest of the scripture or all of the scriptures. It’s always used in reference to Old Testament writings in the New Testament; that’s a consistent hermeneutic. You seem to be breaking from the established usage of the word scripture in the New Testament.

You can also look up how the word “other” is used in the New Testament. Outside of the gospels it is used in rather odd ways in my opinion. here are some examples:

Romans 1:13 - brethren are compared to other gentiles.

Romans 11:7 - the elect obtained it, but the rest were blinded. By your logic the other elect were blinded even though it just says they obtained it.

1 Corinthians 9:5 - a sister, a wife, and other apostles

There’s more.

 

[Runningman]

Huh?

If it's "obvious" that the writers of the Old Testament scriptures knew that they were writing scripture at that time because "that's why they were writing it down", then why isn't it equally as "obvious" in relation to the writers of the New Testament who were similarly "writing it down"?

This should be good...

The New Testament and Old Testament confirm the the OT is scripture. The OT and NT don’t confirm the NT is scripture. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Are you just now realizing that?

 

[posthuman]

I could start throwing warnings to your direction, too,

My point in bringing up Revelation 22:18-19 among several other passages was to remind you that the Bible considers individual words to be important. Revelation 22:18-19 is verbatim proof of that.

I bring it up because basically your argument about Peter's saying "other scripture" rather than "scripture" has been so far to claim the word "other" is immaterial or a mistake.

It's not to threaten you but to point out that a view which considers each word important is not antithetical to the way the Bible treats itself: its wholly consistent with the Bible's own testimony about itself.

Peter says "other" - not for no reason. What's Peter saying?

Your thread is about a single word, "scripture"
Why should a discussion about a single word 'other' be out of place here?

 

[posthuman]

The word other means the rest of the scripture

And Peter says, "Paul's letters and the rest of the scripture"

Seems pretty clear he says 'other' or 'the rest of' for good reason. That is, he's equivocating Paul's epistles with scripture.
If he wasn't doing that why would he say 'other'?

We aren't talking about a translation issue here. That word 'other' is definitely in the Greek.

 

[Nehemiah6]

That is, he's equivocating Paul's epistles with scripture.

I believe you meant "equating" and that is exactly right. On one hand there are the Scriptures contained in the epistles of Paul and on the other hand there are the Holy Scriptures of the Tanakh. All are divinely inspired.

 

[A-Sword-Cometh]

I agree largely with this about the Old Testament being the scriptures and cited and such. However, funny enough even in the New Testament Paul's writings are considered scriptures via Peter's confirmation of Paul and his writings. The Holy Bible is complete, the canon books and writers of the NT all certify each other. So even Paul for the time he lived and the other apostles and writers of the New Testament lived their writings are known holy scriptures and canonized by eachother and recognized by eachother. So even for their time period their writings are scripture and known to be scripture.

 

[Runningman]

I agree largely with this about the Old Testament being the scriptures and cited and such. However, funny enough even in the New Testament Paul's writings are considered scriptures via Peter's confirmation of Paul and his writings. The Holy Bible is complete, the canon books and writers of the NT all certify each other. So even Paul for the time he lived and the other apostles and writers of the New Testament lived their writings are known holy scriptures and canonized by eachother and recognized by eachother. So even for their time period their writings are scripture and known to be scripture.

Let me first preface my response with that I agree that the New Testament is holy writ scripture. That should keep the mockers at bay, I hope.

Now, what verse actually calls Pauls letters, Peter's letters, or any other letter in the New Testament scripture? I'm not asking about the one in 2 Peter 3:16 where you have to jump through hoops to infer and interpret that Peter called Paul's writing scriptures, but rather where does it say "Paul's writings are scripture" or "Peter's writing are scripture?" If we're honest with ourselves and each other we'll see that it doesn't exist. I also disagree that Peter meant to call Paul's writing scripture when he explicitly referred to them as letters.

Now, the New Testament refers to the Old Testament writings many times as scriptures and quotes them often. We can easily say the Old Testament is scripture because the Bible references itself to prove that. The same can't be said regarding the New Testament and that's just a fact proven by the clear lack of verses to reference by you and everyone else in this thread who claims otherwise.

 

[Runningman]

I believe you meant "equating" and that is exactly right. On one hand there are the Scriptures contained in the epistles of Paul and on the other hand there are the Holy Scriptures of the Tanakh. All are divinely inspired.

Where is your "Thus saith the Lord..." or "It is written..." or anything that says the New Testament letters ARE scripture? You don't have it. Quit promoting information that isn't contained in the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

And Peter says, "Paul's letters and the rest of the scripture"

Your "quote" isn't a quote or a paraphrase as it is not even in the New Testament. I know what you're trying to do, though. You're trying to make 2 Peter 3:16 fit your doctrine. Here's what the verse actually says again. I'll even add some of my words in green brackets.

2 Peter 3:15,16 NASB
15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,[in his letters]
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them [Paul's letters] of these things, in which there are some things [his letters] that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort [they distort Paul's letters], as they do also the rest of the Scriptures[not Paul's letters], to their own destruction.

Seems pretty clear he says 'other' or 'the rest of' for good reason. That is, he's equivocating Paul's epistles with scripture.
If he wasn't doing that why would he say 'other'?

The "other" or "rest of" means all of. You want to make it mean that Paul's letters are scripture, too, but that isn't what Peter said. You really should look at how the word "other" is used. It isn't used to put two unlike things into the same group as you seem to be trying to do.

We aren't talking about a translation issue here. That word 'other' is definitely in the Greek.

What are we talking about then? You have a verse that has the word "other" in it and you hang your hat on it that Paul's letters are sripture. Really that's a rather weak argument, but it's the best one you have; I get it!

Okay let's play your game. Are James's letters, Peter, Jude, John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark scripture too? Where is the verse from an apostle that calls their writings scripture?

 

[Runningman]

My point in bringing up Revelation 22:18-19 among several other passages was to remind you that the Bible considers individual words to be important. Revelation 22:18-19 is verbatim proof of that.

I bring it up because basically your argument about Peter's saying "other scripture" rather than "scripture" has been so far to claim the word "other" is immaterial or a mistake.

It's not to threaten you but to point out that a view which considers each word important is not antithetical to the way the Bible treats itself: its wholly consistent with the Bible's own testimony about itself.

Peter says "other" - not for no reason. What's Peter saying?

Your thread is about a single word, "scripture"
Why should a discussion about a single word 'other' be out of place here?

My thread isn't really about semantics, but rather the reason(s) why we call scripture that. You're playing semantics because you keep talking about the word other. Just admit that your interpretation, based off of inference alone, is that Paul's writings are scripture, rather than solid proof.

I'll humor you. Are Peter's writings scripture too? I mean, where are the multitude of verses calling everyone else's writings scripture? There should be a lot, you know, since this was important to them right? Or maybe they only regarded the Old Testament as scripture? That's what the New Testament really says.