Leaps of Logic

FadeToBlack

From the March 1, 2010 WT:

Is the Bible the Word of God?

“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 TIMOTHY 3:16, 17.

WHAT a powerful expression by the apostle Paul on the excelling value of the Bible! He was, of course, referring specifically to that part of the Bible available to him at the time—the writings that people sometimes refer to as the Old Testament. But in principle his words apply with equal force to all of the Bible’s 66 books, including those written by Jesus’ faithful disciples in the first century C.E.

Really, 'in principle'? To be honest, when I first saw that they even admitted that Paul was refering of course to the Hebrew scriptures/OT I ran into the living room and showed it to my wife. She was like: so? To me it was amazing because I always hated when JW's quoted the verse at the door to prove the bible was god's word-> see, it says so here at 2 Tim 3:16.

But then (thanks to the logic folks here) I saw for the first time the text in bold above. In principle. No further proof or explanation necessary. We said so... To me it was just more evidence that JW's are not even reading their own literature. What would a normal, fairly well educated individual think when/if they read such a statement (in principle)?

Please feel free to add you own 'leaps of logic' you have found recently. I need some for FWN...

RobCrompton

The very inconvenient fact for JWs and others in arguing from 2Tim 3:16 for the belief that the Bible is God-given, is the fact that the expression "All scripture" in referring to the Bible as the early Christians used it, was the Greek Septuagint - which included the deutero-canonical (apocryphal) books.

eyeuse2badub

We don't even know if we have "all scripture". What book, letters, or documents belong in the Bible? The Catholic Church and their lackeys decided which books were cannonized. The decisions made by the Catholic Church back in the 4th century! The WTBTS's view is that Jehovah saw to it that his word was preserved in tact. Wonder why Jehovah didn't see to it that his name was preserved during the time that the Bible was being compiled?

eyeuse2badub

Gopher

Paul preached his own ideas. He even said so.

1 Timothy 2:12 - he says HE does not permit a woman to teach in the congregation.

1 Corinthians 7:40 - he says a widow would be better off not remarrying, but admits this is HIS opinion.

So not even all of Paul's writings accepted now as canon were necessarily "inspired" of anything but what he thought.

jgnat

Heck, every time the WTS uses "evidently" in their materials.

FadeToBlack

@RobCrompton: if I understand you correctly (my English skills are fading living in a non-english speaking country) are you saying that the Septuagint included apocryphal books? And that this is the version early christains would have been familiar with (at least Greek speaking)?

FadeToBlack

@Gopher: yes, even when I first started studying (30+ years ago) I noticed the 'my opinion' thing going in in the writings attributed to Paul. Shame on me for not paying more attention. How could an opinion be inspired? Perhaps that is why I never realy got into anyting written by Paul. Too formalistic.

Phizzy

Interesting point made by eyeuse2beadub, the Canon as sort of fixed around the end of the 4th Century was done by a Church that was the Established church of the Roman Empire.

Can anyone honestly think that politics had no effect upon the decision making as to what was canonical and what not ?

Having discarded the Shepherd of Hermas and many other books, one wonders too what writings the Church of the time not only rejected, but burned or otherwise made disappear ?????

The other interesting thing is that the majority of exegetes agree that 1Tim and 2 Tim are not actually writings by Paul, but are much later, so for the WT to base their argument on writings that verge on the fraudulent is just a joke.

Like all their "scholarship", just silly and defective.

FadeToBlack

@Phizzy: agreed. If as the WT says, we were already in apostacy mode by that time, how could 'they' have decided what is canonical and what is not? Maybe one day we will have a NNWT that includes letters from the GB 2.0. Sadly, even that would not be enough to wake up some people.

RobCrompton

@FadetoBlack, yes, that is it. The Hebrew canon, which came to be favoured by the Jews did not contain the apocryphal books. This was the canon which was adopted by the Protestant reformers following the break with the Roman Catholic Church. And, of course, there are many other extra-canonical books (or NT Apocrypha) which, I would argue should be read if we are to get a full understanding of the kinds of stories which were circulated amongst the early Christians.

Leaps of Logic

Share this