Where is the Bible?

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

Take the context of the entire passage and see what it is teaching. To stir the KJVO pot, I will quote from Darby's translation which puts a different light on some of these verses.

2 Peter 1:18-21 and this voice *we* heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain.
19 And we have the prophetic word made surer, to which ye do well taking heed (as to a lamp shining in an obscure place) until the day dawn and the morning star arise in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that the scope of no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
21 for prophecy was not ever uttered by the will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit.

Note the context from verse 18 and the preceding verses. Peter describes one of the greatest, most magnificent, awesome experiences that any man could ever experience. What could be any greater than seeing Jesus in a temporary glorified body along with Elijah and Moses, standing right there in front of him! No experience could ever top that! And what's more the experience was so unique, so elevated, so supernatural, that when it was over Jesus told them (Peter, James and John), not to tell anyone. Why? People would think that they were crazy; they would never believe them.

Now after describing that glorious revelation, he tells his reader this:
"But we have a "more sure word of prophecy" (KJV), or as it is in Darby's translation: "we have the prophetic word made surer."

What is he saying? Even greater than the greatest experience one may have is the Word of God. The canon of Scripture is of greater authority than experience, no matter how great that experience is, and that is why he referred to his own experience. We have the prophetic word made surer (even than my experience). Remember that in chapter three of this same epistle he refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture. There were a lot of other books already written by the time of the writing of this book that were considered Scripture.

He is speaking of the written word. Look again what he says:
2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that the scope of no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
--Even if this "prophecy of Scripture" is taken to refer to the OT only it definitely refers to the written word. It refers to Scripture. That is the context. Throughout this passage Peter is referring to Scripture which some have declared to have "their own particular interpretation." That particular phrase would have no sense if it were referring to prophets like Nathan, whose words were not written down for us to interpret. It refers to the canon of Scripture.

Thus the "holy men of God 'speaking' under the power of the Holy Spirit refers to those men who wrote the canon. The word speak is a red herring at this point. Almost all of the prophets (and by extension the apostles) had amanuenses--those who would write that which was communicated by God to the prophet or apostle. Jeremiah had Baruch. Paul had various helpers. Very few wrote by their own hand.

Even so the word spoke is used in a unique way.
It is like the verse: Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
If that is true, then you should never read your Bible, study your Bible, etc. Faith only comes by hearing. No other way of taking in the word of God is acceptable. Is this your interpretation?

The word "spoke" is used in a similar way. They spoke, uttered, etc. But that doesn't limit them to using only their mouth. Many "dumb" people speak with pen and paper. Zacharias, the husband of Elizabeth, spoke when he wrote "he shall be called John."

Nevertheless the context still refers to the canon of Scripture.

 

Many times I have seen others take and use the same arguments that KJVO's use to support thier postion against them. The same methods used to expose errors in the NIV should also equally apply to any other version to include the KJV. But, B4Life and others some how conclude that is maligning the KJV when it isn't. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

We can agree then that it is not verse 21 alone that we come to understanding of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. You had only displayed verse 21 by itself. I don't think verse 21 alone is relevent to autographs.

Peter supports his statement that the "prophecy of Scripture" (written revelation) is solely from the mind of God with this broader proof: that every spoken (true) prophecy whether recorded or not comes through the Holy Spirit (and not out of the imaginations of men). We know this to be the case because Scripture records instances where God commanded that some sayings be written. Consequently, any of those teachings that are recorded must be inspired also. So verse 21 is only about spoken prophecy; in verse 20 any written ones are naturally included by extension. By Peter's use in his argument (context), I cannot agree that "spoken" means 'written' in verse 21. It is pretty clear in the Greek that "spoke" means to utter with the voice.

I normally like Darby's translation but I think his rendering of verse 20 is misleading. I gotta go; maybe more on this later.

 

That is right, because no translation is inspired; only the originals are. I have given you plenty of Scripture. You haven't given me any for your position. Who was the first one to use the KJV? The Apostle Paul, perhaps?

 

Why would I add to the Word of God? Do you know the warnings about adding to the Word of God?

The same word is used of Adam.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and "breathed into" his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
--When did God stop breathing into Adam?
Your question is foolish.
God breathed once into the Apostles as they wrote the books that they were writing and caused them to write the very words that he wanted them to pen. From that time onward we have copies of those words. God promised to preserve those words. We have the preserved Word of God. Only the originals are inspired--God breathed.

Why do you think this? Who gave you this idea? This is utter foolishness and has nothing to do with either preservation or inspiration.

I didn't say that Scripture was of private interpretation, now, did I?
The Scripture we have today is the preserved Word of God.
The words that the Apostles and Prophets penned by the Holy Spirit of God, they were the words that were inspired. We don't have them any more.

 

If it means that, then why didn't the KJV translators put that into writing instead of writing "God forbid" as they mistakenly did. They should translate what the words mean, so we don't have to re-translate as you just did.

 

No question, verse 20 is about Scripture; graphe (Strong's #1124) is the common term used by apostolic writers to refer to the Hebrew holy writ. But I think you know better: this verse is NOT saying that prophecy (of the Scripture) should not be interpreted by individual humans, but rather it is saying that prophecy (of the Scripture) was not invented by human individuals. So when the verse is understood correctly, what makes sense for written prophecy is equally true of spoken prophecy. It is primarily about "prophecy" (inspired teaching); the words "of the Scripture" specify the type of prophecy in verse 20.

I am not trying to be hyper-literal, but the word "spoke" is not a 'red herring'. In the 296 occurrences of the Greek word laleo I did find not any instances where it could be construed as indicating written communication. The KJV renders the word as "speak" (244 times), "say", "talk", "tell", "preach" and "utter". I am being conservative.

[BTW -- I am familiar with amanuenses, and they have no affect on authorship. I am also familiar with Romans 10:17, and "faith cometh by hearing" has no affect on reading or studying the Bible. Additionally, I would say that this "faith" is saving faith from hearing the Gospel ("word of God") not the living out of Christian faith; this is the common misunderstanding of the use of the word "faith" by Paul and James.]

I invite anyone to comment on the above post and my post #129 (restated in #145). If I'm wrong please show me.

 

I like the KJV rendering here: "is of no private interpretation." The meaning does not apply to individuals else it would negate private study. It is applicable to organizations, like the RCC which has its own private interpretation and allows no freedom for any of its followers to disagree with them. They force their interpretation on all of its members. That is what is meant by "private interpretation." There is no soul liberty. Every cult leader does the same thing. They have their own private interpretation and force it upon their followers. That negates the command to: "Study to show yourselves approved unto God..."

Yes, I believe that is a bit "hyper-literal," as the Word had to be "spoken" whether by the Spirit to the heart, or to another, before it was written down.

 

It seems that you understand 2 Peter 1:20 to prohibit "private interpretation" as an institutional (official) exegetical position. This is an unusual position, since it is not really "private". The Greek word is idios (Strong's #2398) which means pertaining or belonging to one's self; I don't find any instances of the word that apply to institutional (rather than personal) ownership.

I understand "private interpretation" (KJV) to mean out of the prophetic writer's own imagination; this position about the origination of Scripture is rendered more clearly in some translations (just 3 quick examples) --

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves (NLT)

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. (NIV)

Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination (NET) ​

I believe that the ambiguity in the KJV translation (and some other versions) contributes often to this misunderstanding (of the RCC, for example). We will not likely come to perfect agreement on this subject with two different opinions of what this verse teaches. Interestingly, you also seem to misinterpret the archaic meaning of "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15.

2 Peter 1:21 does not even imply that the words are 'spoken' by the Holy Spirit; however, it does explicitly state that the prophets "spake". Can you show a verse where "speak" or similar term clearly indicates (perhaps exclusively) the act of writing?

 

Since this read has changed topic completely I am going to close it and ask the members who are discussing the 2 Peter passage to start a discussion on another thread.