So you know the Greek text does not say “all scripture is inspired?”
Do make a clear statement.
Check the Greek Interlinear for the word “is” if you are uncertain how to answer.
Interlinear glosses are not translations. Honestly, the fact that you don’t seem to know this shows that you don’t understand how translation works or understand basics of Greek grammar.
2 Likes
Why are you going on about what I did not say? Do you not understand the difference between section headings and the text proper?
I think my challenging the flaws in your views has led you to such rudeness.
But there is no “is” in “every inspired scripture.”
I have listed 5 or so translations that do not choose to alter the scripture to pad the Bible’s resume.
I see lots of resistance to what the Greek text actually says, and I know changing long-held beliefs takes time.
Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, I never said the DR wasn’t a major translation, just that it isn’t an authority on Greek translation on modern versions. The more times to you translate something, the greater the chance of mistranslation.
True though the Aramaic to Greek line has not been proven conclusively proven yet. Various theories exist as to which language(s) Jesus spoke. As far as I am aware, they are all arguments from silence at this point in time since we cannot ask the man himself.
1 Like
I’m not trying to be rude, I’m trying to point out that you are in over your head in this discussion and what you think are good points, just aren’t.
The adjective θεόπνευστος is nominative case. It is in predicate position. There is no article preceding the adjective. The way this construction is best translated into English is “N is ADJ.” It is a predicate adjective. That is how the grammar works, and that information is right there in the interlinear, but you have to know Greek to know how to render it in English.
The phrase “all God-inspired Scripture” would have the adjective in attributive position, like these two constructions:
ὁ θεόπνευστος γραφὴ
ὁ γραφὴ ὁ θεόπνευστος.
2 Likes
It’s you and @LM77 that are the Formula Ones – I’m just in the pit crew. 
Thanks again, Cobra/Vance…I think the original remark referred to my using the word “moved” and some concern that “moving” (my word, not in the biblical text) might refer to something beyond ir aside from words.
Be assured, I meant ‘words’ as in ‘inspired to write’…
2 Timothy 3:14-17 certainly does involve words…that is, words that the author somehow wished to convey as useful and from God.
You had another and interesting take on this, including the interpretation of your friend. I have not really focused on this passage quite this way before. You, the late Adam Clarke (1762-1832) and the notes in the Oxford New Annotated Bible (NRSV), plus the notes in the Archaeological Study Bible (NIV) all say this oassage refers to the Hebrew Scriptures of the time, that is, the Old Testament.
Others, like the Enduring Word Bible Commentary (find it online and not same as Word Biblical Commentary), take a different approach.,
The King James Version with Strongs Concordance renders the verses " And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, all scripture [is] given by God and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The translations I have seen – incl Oxford Annotated (NRSV) – takes that rendition (without the thees and thous[ as their preference – though Oxford lists phrasing similar to Adam Clarke’s “Every writing Divinely inspired is…” in the margins as an alternative.
As the footnotes of the NIV state, the reference may have been largely to the Old Testament (Septuagint) but there is also the statement “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation just as our dear brother Paul wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him…His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3: :15-16).
The comments from this chapter of 2 Peter are cited by various interpreters/scholars as indicative of a growing belief that the apostles (or at least some) were also writing words inspired by God…which should then be regarded as useful for instruction, etc.
Well…that is how it looks to many or most. The development of the New Testament canon is an intricate story, I am sure. But Irenaeus had written a letter referring to many of the books we now call the NT – and there is some argument, which I have read elsewhere, that the development of a canon was borne partly out of a refutation of Marcion (early 2nd century A.D.) – who did indeed have his own severely restricted sense of canon.
Have a good evening…or morning, depending on where you are!!
You underestimate me, Christy, and overestimate yourself.
Such pride is unbecoming.
I agree with the more translations the mind chance of error.
Do you agree that there are a few clear and minor errors in the Greek text, such as the instructions of Jesus to the disciples on the things to take on their missionary journey?
And there is not “is” between “every scripture” and “inspired,” so it is a mistranslation to add “is” between them.
For @bluebird:
Robin,
Your posts are a breath of fresh air! You seem to be interested in the truth!
The Oxford Edition of the NRSV, edited by Bruce Metzger, is my favorite Bible. My son gave me a copy years ago.
As for:
‘Adam Clarke’s “Every writing Divinely inspired is…” in the margins as an alternative…” yes, that is what I think the scriptures actually say!
As for your comment: “But Irenaeus had written a letter referring to many of the books we now call the NT…”
Here is a valuable source on such questions:
I prefer the canon of the Church of the East, which has only 22 books in the NT canon.
It is not arrogance to accurately evaluate your abilities and expertise. It looks to me like you read an obscure article your friend wrote and spent ten minutes today on Biblehub. And from that you feel qualified to instruct me in how Greek grammar and Bible translation works.
I have 12 graduate level credit hours in NT Greek, a master’s degree in linguistics/Bible translation (a program in which I graduated with a 4.0 and a “superior” on the exegesis/translation section of my comprehensive exams). I am an currently exegetical and translation consultant on a Bible translation project. That is my job.
Maybe I have underestimated you. Feel free to list your relevant credentials. But, you telling me how it really is when it comes to biblical Greek and Bible translation just sounds like a whole lot of mansplaining to me. I have legit knowledge in this area, so no, it’s not pride to give myself credit for all the hard work I have put in to obtaining it and to rate it as more relevant to this question than the information you have brought to the table, none of which (so far) screams that you are an expert I need to defer to.
4 Likes
Cobra…thanks but I hope I am not misunderstood. The KJV with Strong’s Concordance does not pick up on the phrase “Every writing Divinely inspired…” that was Adam Clarke of the late 18th century… And the Oxford Annotated version of NRSV only relegated that phrase to the margin, not to the text.
I am sure they had their reason. Additionally, the passage in 2 Peter adds to the larger point – which I think is being made by some others – that the letters of the NT and the Gospels were also well regarded and becoming thought of as inspired Scripture by the end of Paul’s era ( mid 60s A.D.)
The lack of an “is” does not mean much to me since language translation is something of an art form. The website “Biblical Hermeneutics” says that “nearly all the oldest and most trustworthy versions (the Syriac and the Vulgate” ,and then they mention Origen, Theodoret, Grptius, Luther, Myer, Ellicott, and Alford"… as translating that passage: “Every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof…” etc and the writer of Biblical Hermenutics (whoever they are) concludes that “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training one in righteousness, …”
I am going to enjoy the book by Metzger when it arrives.
1 Like
Christy, as for my credentials, I have been a dedicated Christian studying these topics for more than 55 years, with an open mind and an open heart.
That hardly trumps all of the scholarship that you don’t agree with.
Robin, 2 Peter is not in the canon that I accept (the canon of the Church of the East).
2 Peter was not mentioned by the early church leaders until about 200 AD, which is clear evidence that it is a forgery.
It was first mentioned more than 100 years after Peter died. That is clear evidence that it is a forgery.
Eusebius said it doesn’t belong in the canon.
Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary writes the “vast bulk” of NT scholars see it as a forgery
By canon of the Church of the East, do you mean Origen’s canon??
As for Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological, he does in fact say that the majority of NT scholars are skeptical of 2 Peter…but he then presents arguments for 2 Peter actually having been written by Peter in Rome, likely right after the death of Paul and just before Peter’s own death. He noted that 2 Peter is cited in “at least 22 places” in the Apostolic Fathers, including by Ignatius. He makes a great case, at least from the reading of it. At any rate, it is good to see another set of arguments and to evaluate.
Wallace has a long and indepth article detailing his arguments and citing his sources… He does not hold the same thoughts for 1 Peter, however. Find it on Bible.org by googling.
No, the NT canon of the Church of the East includes 22 books, and it differs from the Roman
Catholic canon by excluding the books which were still disputed at the beginning of the 4th century: 2&3 John, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation.
Of course, and if he did not present that opinion of the authenticity of 2 Peter, he would no longer be employed at DTS.
According to this, Ignatius had no knowledge of 2 Peter. I will look back at the Bible.org document. I have used it in my small group at church. I recall no mention of Ignatius mentioning 2 Peter. Can you quote the text of his article?
I think it is very difficult to disagree with the people who sign your paycheck.
Metzger says the first church leader to mention 2 Peter was Hippolytus of Rome around 200 AD, and he did not mention it as scripture.