vestion on Nostr: nostr:note132t5q670fnnuus0kr25d56tcgwvy8xdy3jha6kzrk3py86fewz4qzzqlr5 I doubt that ...

quoting note132t…qlr5

The majority of scholars agree that Paul did not write 2 Timothy. The word God-breathed only appears once in the Bible. In the Old Testament, the concept of God breathing has always refers to giving or sustaining life (Genesis 7:15, 22; Job 27:3-4, 33:4; Isaiah 42:5). In Genesis, God breathed into Adam the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). Just because scripture is God breathed doesn't mean that it is infallible.

Also, the author's understanding of scripture would have included different versions of books we consider scripture and also other books that we don't consider scripture. So if 2 Timothy 3:16 was saying that all scripture is infallible, then that would have to mean that the later additions we made to the Old Testament are not scripture and that books that he considered scripture that are not in our Bibles are scripture. Additionally, at the time of writing 2 Timothy, the New Testament didn't exist yet.

Not even the real Paul would have been thinking of his letters as being scripture. For him, there was no reason to turn letters into scripture. Often letters contain material that is local and situational. There is no evidence that he knew that he was writing letters that would one day be called scripture by men four centuries in the future.

There is no evidence in the Bible to suggest that the Bible is the Word of God.

I doubt that the Bible ever claims that the specific 66 books, or however many books are in your Bible, are the words of God.

The Bible was written by men. They may have been inspired but they were not infallible. Also, there was never a universal consensus on what the contents of the Bible should be. In fact, for nearly 400 years, the early Church did not have an official canon of scripture. Different denominations have different canons. Why place trust in the authority of those who determined what constitutes scripture and what does not? What if they left writings out or included writings in error? How can we be sure that they were infallible in their process? Scripture has always been a process. There have always been additions made as well as pruning at times.

I don't believe that the Bible is a perfect revelation of God; however, I do believe that it infallibly points us to Jesus and should be read through the lens of Jesus.

I believe that while the Old Testament authors attempted to understand God, they were often mistaken. Christ's own disciples misunderstood God the majority of the time.

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:17-18 NIV)

If the Old Testament authors have never seen God (because only Jesus makes him known), then it makes sense that their depictions of Him would sometimes be incorrect. Jesus Christ, after whom our religion is named, is how we truly know what God is like. The Old Testament must be read through the lens of Jesus.

Leo Tolstoy said in The Gospel in Brief: 'They all employ one and the same gross method of affirming, the truth of their interpretations by the assertion that their interpretations are not human utterances but revelations from the Holy Ghost. Without entering on an examination of these beliefs, each of which calls itself the true one, one cannot help seeing that by the method common to them all of acknowledging the whole immense quantity of so-called scriptures of the Old and New Testament as equally sacred, they themselves impose an insuperable obstacle to an understanding of Christ's teaching; and that from this mistake arises the possibility and inevitability of endlessly divergent interpretations of the teaching. The reconcilement of a number of revelations can be infinitely varied, but the interpretation of the teaching of one person (and one looked upon as God) should not occasion discord.

If God descended to earth to teach people, his teaching, by the very purpose of his coming, cannot be understood in more than one way. If God came down to earth to reveal truth to men, at least he would have revealed it so that all might understand: if he did not do that he was not God; and if the divine truths are such that even God could not make them intelligible to mankind, men certainly cannot do so.

If Jesus is not God, but a great man, then still less can his teaching produce discord. For the teaching of a great man is only great because it expresses intelligibly and clearly what others have expressed unintelligibly and obscurely. What is incomprehensible in a great man's teaching is not great, and therefore a great man's teaching does not engender sects. Only an exposition which affirms that it is a revelation from the Holy Ghost and is the sole truth, and that all other expositions are lies, gives birth to discord and to the mutual animosities among the Churches that result therefrom.'