Inspiration, Scripture, and 2 Timothy 3:16

I had overlooked that oblique mention of Agrippa and someone named Theophilus, who evidently briefly served as a Roman-appointed high priest. However, Agrippa lived from 63 to 12 BC, and since Luke was writing circa 50 AD, it would seem that anyone who had been removed during Agrippa's brief presence would have not have still been alive when Luke was writing.

Theophilus was high priest for about four years.

Different Agrippa, try:

Herod Agrippa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa

And I see your correction. :)
 
No, I am not inclined to think that Luke was writing to a high priest. Luke explains and describes ritual and Jerusalem landmarks in a way that would be unnecessary for a priest or even a well-educated Jerusalem Jew.
 
No, I am not inclined to think that Luke was writing to a high priest. Luke explains and describes ritual and Jerusalem landmarks in a way that would be unnecessary for a priest or even a well-educated Jerusalem Jew.
You think that Luke had no idea the Gospel might have wide distribution?

Where do you think Luke was overly specific? The course of Abia? Simeon? Anna? The priests who became believers in Jesus?
 
I realize that I am not getting any Likes from members on this, but I still am inclined to think that the Theophilus mentioned in Luke and Acts was a Gentile at some distance from Jerusalem.
 
I am disinclined to think that Paul is citing the Gospel of Luke in 1 Tim 5:18 because, as far as I know, Paul nowhere else gives a clear citation of the Gospel of Luke.* In fact, Paul seems very vague on the earthly ministry of Jesus, apart from the Crucifixion; it is as if Paul was ignorant of the narrative of any of the Gospels.

* I feel sure that someone will come up with a passage that proves me wrong.
 
I was quite serious about my invitation (or challenge) for someone to find a citation of the Gospel of Luke (or any Gospel) in any of the epistles of Paul.

A Sunday School teacher of my acquaintance has reminded me that, in the murky topic of estimating the dates of authorship of the parts of the NT, Paul's epistles were probably (possibly) written before any of the Gospels were written. Therefore, when Paul speaks of "Scriptures" he is not referring to any part of the NT but only to the OT.
 
Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not prove his claim to be true. Perhaps Steven Avery has adopted this definition by Peter Ruckman.

Perhaps it has never occurred to some KJV-only advocates that their definition, understanding, and interpretation of inspiration may not be sound or perfect.

It wouldn't matter if it had occurred to them or not. Their entire MO is a sick confirmation bias routine.

What is their clear, precise, sound definition and understanding of inspiration that can be applied consistently, soundly, and justly in the same sense (univocally) including both before and after 1611? Have some KJV-only advocates in effect or in practice privately interpreted “all Scripture” to mean only the KJV?

The term Scripture would refer to words of God that are written, but the process of writing would not be its definition. According its usage and meaning in the Scriptures, the noun Scripture does not include all words that ever have been written. Words can be written without them being Scripture. Words can even be written in or added to a copy of the Scriptures without them being Scripture. Marginal notes or commentary can be added to a copy of the Scriptures without the added words being Scripture. According to truths suggested in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19, would words added by men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture? Would any errors written by imperfect men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture according to a correct definition of it? Would any actual errors introduced by printers in a printed edition of Scripture become Scripture according to its correct definition? The term Scripture refers to actual words given by inspiration of God, but this process of the giving by inspiration is not actually stated to be its definition as some KJV-only advocates try to assume and claim. Since the process of writing clearly is not the definition for the term Scripture, could it also be asserted that the process of giving by inspiration is not its definition?

Should a Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 be considered the definition for the Greek noun translated “Scripture”? While an adjective can describe a certain noun, that adjective would not usually be the total definition of that noun. In the Bible, the Scriptures are described by several adjectives that may indicate its attributes or qualities so that no one of them is its definition. While all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, being “profitable” is not the definition for the term Scripture. Something can be “profitable” and perhaps even profitable for doctrine/teaching without it being Scripture. This adjective “profitable” is used of Scripture in the same verse (2 Tim. 3:16) to which KJV-only advocates appeal for their claimed definition so why is it not included as part of the definition that they claim is given in this verse? While the words of Scripture are pure (Ps. 19:8, Prov. 30:5, Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), being “pure” is not the definition of the term Scripture. Is it interesting that the adjective pure is not claimed by KJV-only advocates to be the definition of Scripture? Something can be pure without it being Scripture. Something can go thru a purification process without it being Scripture. The word of the LORD is tried (Ps. 18:30), but that does not mean that being “tried” would be the correct definition for the term Scripture. Something can be tried without it being Scripture. Being “perfect” is not the definition of scripture even though the word of God is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25). The words of Scripture are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, John 119:160), but the adjective “true” is not actually the definition of the term “Scripture.” Something can be true without it being Scripture. Being “wonderful” is not the definition of Scripture even though its testimonies are wonderful (Ps. 119:129). The words or commandments of the LORD are sure (Ps. 111:7, Ps. 92:5, Ps. 19:7, 2 Pet. 1:19), but the adjective “sure” is not their definition. Something can be sure without it being Scripture. The adjective “right” is not claimed to be the definition of Scripture even though the words of Scripture are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4, Ps. 119:75). Something can be right without it being Scripture. The Scriptures are described by the adjective “holy” (2 Tim. 3:15), but that does not mean that this adjective is its definition. The prophets and the apostles were also described by the adjective holy (Rev. 22:6, Eph. 3:5, Rev. 18:30) so would that in effect make them the Scriptures if holy was claimed to be its definition? Likewise, while all Scripture is God-inspired or God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), being “God-inspired” or “God-breathed” has not been soundly demonstrated to be the actual definition of the term Scripture. Can God breathe into something without it being Scripture? God breathed into man or Adam (Gen. 2:7, Job 33:4) so would Adam be Scripture according to the claimed KJV-only definition of it?

Perhaps KJV-only advocates failed to prove that they are giving the definition of Scripture in Scripture as they try to claim. Are KJV-only advocates consistent in suggesting which type statements in Scripture are to be claimed to be definitions? For example, would KJV-only advocates take the statement “God is love” (1 John 4:16) and treat it the same way as though it were a definition of God? Would they take the statement “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and treat it as though it were a definition of God? Would they take the statement “I am holy” (Lev. 11:44, 1 Pet. 1:16) made by God and treat it as though it were a definition of God? It is clear that KJV-only advocates do not apply their claims of giving definitions according to Scripture consistently and justly.
 
Back
Top