It’s not biblical!

[dwb001]

I knew you would not accept what I said so after I posted I collected this for you so you can search it out for yourself:

G3062 - loipos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G3062 - λοιποί loipoí, loy-poy'; masculine plural of a derivative of ; remaining ones:—other, which remain, remnant, residue, rest.

www.blueletterbible.org

The English translators are entirely in accordance with the Greek word used. You can see for yourself that this is true. The people Peter is referring to twist Paul's writings just as they do the other, or remaining, or the rest of scripture. It's quite clear and can not be honestly interpreted any other way. You'll have to get rid of the word 'loipos' to make what you say true.

I wasn't referring to the word but the syntax of the sentence.

 

[for_his_glory]

Then please apply the verses in their correct context.

You need to go look up the word scripture as I am sure you have a dictionary.

All the Pauline Epistles are part of the NT cannon that includes 2Timothy 3:16. All the Apostles draw on their witness of Christ and testify of Him and what He taught. The New Covenant of God's grace in the NT is Christ Jesus.

 

[dwb001]

You need to go look up the word scripture as I am sure you have a dictionary.

All the Pauline Epistles are part of the NT cannon that includes 2Timothy 3:16. All the Apostles draw on their witness of Christ and testify of Him and what He taught. The New Covenant of God's grace in the NT is Christ Jesus.

Absolutely... but(as you say) NOT SCRIPTURE.

 

[GodsGrace]

That logic falls apart.
Paul did not included his own writings as scripture... before they were scripture... so that when someone made it scripture... it then could refer to it's self.

If Paul was referring to the OT... who are we to say it refers to the NT?
That would be like saying the Rev 1:3 and Rev 22:18-19 refer to the entire Bible.
That would be gross mishandling of the text.
Like the quote "where two or three are gathered there am I in the midst..." being applied to congregational gatherings.
Gross incompetence at best.

We're not understanding each other.
Must leave now.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I wasn't referring to the word but the syntax of the sentence.

The people Peter is referring to twist Paul's inspired words of wisdom as they do the rest of scripture. He did not say they twist Paul's writings and scripture, as if scripture was a separate and distinct entity being twisted. The Greek word 'loipos' makes it so Paul's writings and scripture, in context, are one and the same entity being twisted.

 

[dwb001]

The people Peter is referring to twist Paul's inspired words of wisdom as they do the rest of scripture. He did not say they twist Paul's writings and scripture, as if scripture was a separate and distinct entity. The Greek word 'liopos' makes it so Paul's writings and scripture, in context, are one and the same.

That would be isegesis... and would go against all the Greek I learned in Bible College.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That would be isegesis... and would go against all the Greek I learned in Bible College.

How can you have college training in Greek and not see that 'loipos' in 2 Peter 3:16 is referring to what remains of scripture apart from Paul's writings?

All you or anyone has to do is look in the link I provided where the word is used in other passages of the Bible and see that it means a remaining part of something, not an additional, different part.

 

[dwb001]

How can you have college training in Greek and not see that 'loipos' is referring to what remains of scripture apart from Paul's writings?

All you or anyone has to do is look in the link I provided where the word is used in other passages of the Bible and see that it means a remaining part of something, not an additional part.

APART from Paul's writing. So Scripture is something different that Paul's writing.
That is YOUR interpretation of the Greek. Looking at the entire sentence would indicate that the cohesive point of the passage is how others are treating Paul's works as well as the Scriptures.

 

[for_his_glory]

That logic falls apart.
Paul did not included his own writings as scripture... before they were scripture... so that when someone made it scripture... it then could refer to it's self.

If Paul was referring to the OT... who are we to say it refers to the NT?
That would be like saying the Rev 1:3 and Rev 22:18-19 refer to the entire Bible.
That would be gross mishandling of the text.
Like the quote "where two or three are gathered there am I in the midst..." being applied to congregational gatherings.
Gross incompetence at best.

says you

scripture is also called the revered texts or the Holy writings of the Prophets and Apostles that were inspired by God in what they wrote as letters and these writings that have been compiled have been become the cannon that is called the Holy Bible. Even logic shows us these were individual writings by individual people. If you take out the book name, chapter and verse you can see these are letters each one wrote.

Paul’s letters were distributed by churches sometime around 50 A.D., possibly just before Paul’s death. Scribes copied the letters and kept them in circulation. As circulation continued, the letters were collected into books in which we now call the Holy Bible.

It's not that hard to research how the Holy Bible came to be written.

 

[dwb001]

says you

scripture is also called the revered texts or the Holy writings of the Prophets and Apostles that were inspired by God in what they wrote as letters and these writings that have been compiled have been become the cannon that is called the Holy Bible. Even logic shows us these were individual writings by individual people. If you take out the book name, chapter and verse you can see these are letters each one wrote.

Paul’s letters were distributed by churches sometime around 50 A.D., possibly just before Paul’s death. Scribes copied the letters and kept them in circulation. As circulation continued, the letters were collected into books in which we now call the Holy Bible.

It's not that hard to research how the Holy Bible came to be written.

Would Paul... before his death... refer to his own writings as the Holy Scripture... HANDED DOWN FROM GOD HIMSELF... or do you think that Paul might have lived up to the meaning of his name?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

APART from Paul's writing. So Scripture is something different that Paul's writing.
That is YOUR interpretation of the Greek. Looking at the entire sentence would indicate that the cohesive point of the passage is how others are treating Paul's works as well as the Scriptures.

Stop twisting!

Peter is very plainly saying Paul's inspired words of wisdom are twisted by some people just as the remaining/ rest of scripture is twisted by them. It's undeniable. You're trying so hard to make obvious Greek words not mean what they verifiably mean.

Like I say, when you can get rid of the word 'loipos' then you have an argument. But as it is, 'loipos' is an undeniable part of the verse so it destroys any argument that Peter was not including Paul's writings with scripture. Just look at all the other places in the Bible where the word 'loipos' is used. It's plain as day.

 

[dwb001]

Stop twisting!

Peter is very plainly saying Paul's inspired words of wisdom are twisted by some people just as the remaining/ rest of scripture is twisted by them. It's undeniable. You're trying so hard to make obvious Greek words not mean what they verifiably mean.

Like I say, when you can get rid of the word 'loipos' then you have an argument. But as it is, 'loipos' is an undeniable part of the verse so it destroys any argument that Peter was not including Paul's writings with scripture. Just look at all the other places in the Bible where the word 'loipos' is used. It's plain as day.

Sorry... nope... not a convincing argument.

 

[for_his_glory]

Would Paul... before his death... refer to his own writings as the Holy Scripture... HANDED DOWN FROM GOD HIMSELF... or do you think that Paul might have lived up to the meaning of his name?

Paul's name has nothing to do with his letters as what he wrote, If you do not think that all who wrote their letters are not inspired by God to do so and circulate among those in whom they tried to teach then you have no clue what the Holy Bible is all about.

You do well at criticizing others saying we are unlearned, but yet all you use is your own logic to refute what we have shown you in yes, the scriptures or another word is the texts of the cannon that makes up the Bible.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Would Paul... before his death... refer to his own writings as the Holy Scripture... HANDED DOWN FROM GOD HIMSELF... or do you think that Paul might have lived up to the meaning of his name?

We have better than that. PETER refers to Paul's writings as part of scripture. Paul's own witness would certainly be suspect to some degree. But we have Peter's witness to this fact.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Sorry... nope... not a convincing argument.

I mean, you're not the first person to resist plainly visible evidence, lol!

This is not even up for honest debate! Just read the link to Strong's I sent you.

 

[dwb001]

Paul's name has nothing to do with his letters as what he wrote, If you do not think that all who wrote their letters are not inspired by God to do so and circulate among those in whom they tried to teach then you have no clue what the Holy Bible is all about.

You do well at criticizing others saying we are unlearned, but yet all you use is your own logic to refute what we have shown you in yes, the scriptures or another word is the texts of the cannon that makes up the Bible.

I believe that the Apostles wrote as the were inspired by God.
I am not saying that all of the NT is not the True Inspired Word of God.
Maybe you don't see that what I am saying is that Paul would not refer to his own writings as Scripture.
Yes Paul's writings are inspired by God and worthy of study and to be followed as expanded teachings of Jesus.
That doesn't make them Scripture as a 1st century Jew would understand them.
So the verse in question would not refer to Paul's writings as Scripture... that does not lower the value of Paul's writings... just puts them in a different category. Possibly the category of NT Apostolic Teachings... To separate the NT biographies and NT prophecy from the teachings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

APART from Paul's writing. So Scripture is something different that Paul's writing.
That is YOUR interpretation of the Greek. Looking at the entire sentence would indicate that the cohesive point of the passage is how others are treating Paul's works as well as the Scriptures.

Nooooo!

You're twisting what it says, lol!
It doesn't say "as well as the scriptures."
It says "as also the other Scriptures".
You can't just decide you're going to ignore the word 'loipos' in the verse!

2 Peter 3 :: King James Version (KJV)

2 Peter 3 - This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[dwb001]

I mean, you're not the first person to resist plainly visible evidence, lol!

This is not even up for honest debate! Just read the link to Strong's I sent you.

Your entire argument rests on the word "other".
Do I have that right?
I can tell you as a son of a Language Teacher... that the sentence structure may not say what you think it says.

 

[dwb001]

Nooooo!

You're twisting what it says, lol!
It doesn't say "as well as the scriptures."
It says "as they do the other Scriptures".
You can't just decide you're going to ignore the word 'loipos' in the verse!

2 Peter 3 :: King James Version (KJV)

2 Peter 3 - This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

www.blueletterbible.org

You do know the word "the" is not in the Greek?
So it says "as they do other Scriptures"(or writings).
The text it's self is not strong enough to support the argument you are making.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You do know the word "the" is not in the Greek?
So it says "as they do other Scriptures"(or writings).
The text it's self is not strong enough to support the argument you are making.

It is there: G3588

Read the link I provided!!!!!

Here it is again:

2 Peter 3 :: King James Version (KJV)

2 Peter 3 - This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

www.blueletterbible.org