Christians: Did God Write the Bible?

[angellous_evangellous]

Except if you're using 2 Timothy as your basis for believing that the Bible is God's Word, you have to acknowledge that Paul couldn't have been referring to anything that he wouldn't have considered "scripture" at the time.

IIRC, when the Epistles were written, the Gospels were still being passed along orally and could not have been considered "written scripture"; at the very least, the Epistles seem to indicate Paul's lack of familiarity with the four Gospels as we have them today. And things that were wholly created and written after 2 Timothy would definitely not be referred to in Paul's statement. The first source I Googled claims that the following books might have been written after 2 Timothy:

- Matthew*
- Mark*
- Luke*
- John*
- Acts*
- Ephesians**
- Philippians**
- Colossians**
- Philemon**
- Hebrews
- 1 Peter
- 2 Peter
- 1 John*
- 2 John*
- 3 John*
- Jude
- Revelation

*possibly - range of dates given.
**possibly - same year given as for 2 Timothy.

So... given that it's quite likely that Paul wasn't referring to the New Testament at all when he talked of "Scripture", and given that the books above likely weren't even written when he wrote the quote you cited, why should we take 2 Timothy as any sort of statement of validity about the books I listed above?

I think that list is pretty far off. 2 Timothy is not thought to be a Pauline letter, considered after the Pauline corpus (1 and 2 Cor; 1 and 2 Thess; Romans; Galatians; Philemon. Your source is a very conservative NT scholar that does not recognize research for the past 30 years - Source of dates of New Testament: John A. T. Robinson, "Redating The New Testament" 1976. This list of dating is more up to date - Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

It's better to argue that 2 Tim is referring only to the Old Testament when he says "Scripture" because the author most likely did not view the NT as quite on the same level.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that list is pretty far off. 2 Timothy is not thought to be a Pauline letter, considered after the Pauline corpus (1 and 2 Cor; 1 and 2 Thess; Romans; Galatians; Philemon. Your source is a very conservative NT scholar that does not recognize research for the past 30 years - Source of dates of New Testament: John A. T. Robinson, "Redating The New Testament" 1976. This list of dating is more up to date - Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Yes, it's quite possible that it was wrong: like I mentioned, it was the first source that came up on a quick Google search.

If 2 Timothy was written by someone other than Paul but purporting to be him, and long after it seems to have been written, then I'd say this introduces more problems than it solves if the goal is accepting every word of the Bible as literally true.

My point was, though, that the author of the letter likely wouldn't have even been familiar with much of the modern Bible, to say nothing of considering it "scripture". To apply the statement in question beyond what the author even knew about is playing sneaky theology.

It's better to argue that 2 Tim is referring only to the Old Testament when he says "Scripture" because the author most likely did not view the NT as quite on the same level.

Yes... I do think that's quite a valid assumption. Even separate from that, though, I think that much of what we call the Bible would not have been available to the author of 2 Timothy, so even setting aside questions of point of view over what constitutes scripture, it's impossible for someone to write factually about something that they have no knowledge of.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If 2 Timothy was written by someone other than Paul but purporting to be him, and long after it seems to have been written, then I'd say this introduces more problems than it solves if the goal is accepting every word of the Bible as literally true.

No kidding. Proporting that the entire Bible is literally true is a recent phenomenon. No Jew or Christian anywhere has ever thought this except for the most backward uneducated ignoramus. The most poorly educated person is aware of literary devices such as metaphors, hyperbole, and et cetera. Even most evangelical wackos recognize that...

My point was, though, that the author of the letter likely wouldn't have even been familiar with much of the modern Bible, to say nothing of considering it "scripture". To apply the statement in question beyond what the author even knew about is playing sneaky theology.

Yeah, I agree...

 

[Scuba Pete]

No Jew or Christian anywhere has ever thought this except for the most backward uneducated redneck.

I find this statement incredibly alarming. I hope the word choice was by mistake.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I find this statement incredibly alarming. I hope the word choice was by mistake.

No mistake at all, Pete. It was directed at the belief that every word of the Bible is literally true - that it contains no literary devises at all. Nobody has ever believed that to my knowledge, and if they did, they would be pathetically ignorant.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Your use of the word "redneck" is misguided at best. I personally find it incredibly offensive. Knowing you as I do, again I hope the use was a mistake.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Signatures change... will your post?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Signatures change... will your post?

Gladly.

 

[Luke_17:2]

No Jew or Christian anywhere has ever thought this except for the most backward uneducated ignoramus. The most poorly educated person is aware of literary devices such as metaphors, hyperbole, and et cetera. Even most evangelical wackos recognize that...

Of couse it's not all literal -there are many figurative parts.

But I think it must be made clear that Peter, for example, was an uneducated redneck.

It's been my experience that those backward uneducated rednecks make the best Christians. You see, education is second to what the Bible, and the Lord's work. I have a college education. So what? I have a master's, and went to a "Christian" College. So what? The master's comes in handy: it gets me well-paying jobs so I can pour it into missions, and my own ministries before using it for necessities. I realized after graduating from that "Christian" College that the only thing that I did for two years was refer to Hebrew and Greek texts, and then being taught that the Bible is relative and subjective.

I don't care if you discovered nuclear fission, or discover cold fusion.

Don't even get me started with those evangelical wackos. How dare they carry out the great commission (Matthew 28)...:sarcastic

 

[sojourner]

Of couse it's not all literal -there are many figurative parts.

But I think it must be made clear that Peter, for example, was an uneducated redneck.

It's been my experience that those backward uneducated rednecks make the best Christians. You see, education is second to what the Bible, and the Lord's work. I have a college education. So what? I have a master's, and went to a "Christian" College. So what? The master's comes in handy: it gets me well-paying jobs so I can pour it into missions, and my own ministries before using it for necessities. I realized after graduating from that "Christian" College that the only thing that I did for two years was refer to Hebrew and Greek texts, and then being taught that the Bible is relative and subjective.

I don't care if you discovered nuclear fission, or discover cold fusion.

Don't even get me started with those evangelical wackos. How dare they carry out the great commission (Matthew 28)...:sarcastic

I might point out that Peter also had direct contact with Jesus, who taught him. I can't confidently vouch for the closeness of others to Christ. Perhaps "redneck" isn't the defining factor here. Perhaps "valid teaching" is more cogent.