It does refer to the Bible and to much more.
First, many ancient scriptures have been lost. The Bible testifies to its own incompleteness, mentioning sacred works no longer available and Old Testament prophecies presently missing (Josh. 10:13; 1 Kgs. 11:41; 1 Chr. 29:29; Eph. 3:3).
Second, it would be very arrogant and unreasonable (and perhaps damning) to presume that God would only speak to one group of His children. In John 10: 16, Christ says 'And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.'
I look forward to a time when all scriptures will be restored and made available.
2007-08-17 02:48:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by The Corinthian 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
At the time 2nd Timothy was written, any reference to Scripture would have been to what we regard as the Old Testament, as the so-called New Testament had not been written yet. Paul, 2 Timothy's writer, was a Jew from an extremely observant sect known as the Philistines, so he would have been well versed in the Hebrew Scriptures in the Torah, and the words of the prophets (what, compiled, we call the Old Testament).
2007-08-17 02:35:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think it refers to the Bible. But at the time 2 Timothy was written, the Bible had not yet been compiled as we know it today. Most likely 2 Timothy is referring to the Old Testament and the Gospels.
2007-08-17 02:42:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Misty 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are many references in the Bible to books and prophecies that are not available in the Bible or anywhere else If these were to be found, wouldn't they also help make us wise unto salvation?
I cheated and c&p this list from a Bible Topical Guide
Ex. 24: 7 took the book of the covenant.
Num. 21: 14 book of the wars of the Lord.
Josh. 10: 13 (2 Sam. 1: 18) book of Jasher.
1 Sam. 10: 25 Samuel . . . wrote it in a book.
1 Kgs. 11: 41 book of the acts of Solomon.
1 Chr. 29: 29 book of Samuel the seer.
2 Chr. 9: 29 book of Nathan the prophet.
2 Chr. 12: 15 book of Shemaiah the prophet.
2 Chr. 13: 22 acts of Abijah . . . in the story of the prophet Iddo.
2 Chr. 20: 34 book of Jehu.
2 Chr. 33: 19 written among the sayings of the seers.
Matt. 2: 23 spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
1 Cor. 5: 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle.
Eph. 3: 3 as I wrote afore in few words.
Col. 4: 16 read the epistle from Laodicea.
Jude 1: 3 when I gave all diligence to write unto you.
Jude 1: 14 Enoch also . . . prophesied of these.
2007-08-17 06:21:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Senator John McClain 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Paul didn't have a Bible. Scripture includes all that prophets and apostles have revealed. Canon are those scriptures which have been agreed to be treated as scripture by a church. We make discoveries of scripture in the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Harabi. We have modern day prophets. All fulfills the benefits Paul had described. The benefit of the Bible as scripture is that it is a long accepted part of the Canon.
2007-08-17 03:41:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Isolde 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
All scriptures that were inspired by God is written in the Bible. It refers actually to the Bible. may it be old testament or new. Although they may not exist yet during the time of Paul, If the book or epistles were written by known disciples or apostles of God at that time, then truly we can be assured that it is divinely inspired and they are moved by the Holy Spirit to write these.
2007-08-17 02:44:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jay R 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think some people refer to religion as "brainwashing" because they personally feel they have been influenced by family and society (predominately from an early age) to believe in a religion they may no longer completely believe in. Therefore, these people are left with a sense of being wrongly influenced by the very same people they trust. The term "brainwashing" is obviously a very negative term to throw around, and might be somewhat of an over-exaggeration, but people in this case are often describing the term from a personal level.
2016-05-20 21:05:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Remember that the books of the Bible were not chosen until after 300AD. There were many writings that were viewed as canonical for different sects of Christianity until that point (and even somewhat later). Such writings as the Gospel of Thomas and various Acts of different apostles were seen by many as authoritative. The 'scriptures' that Timothy was talking about were almost certainly what we consider to be the Old Testament, although perhaps the Book of Enoch (which is not now regarded as canonical) would have been included.
2007-08-17 02:36:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by mathematician 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
It refers to scripture. Since the apostles and early Christians were Jews, that means the Tanach, which is the same as the Christian Old Testament.
Skalite: I don't know if you meant to make a funny or mistyped. Paul was not a Philistine. He was a Pharisee.
2007-08-17 02:33:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by cmw 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
scripture and the 'bible are not synonyms currently.The scriptures are added to in the Bible currentlyin USA (for most people). Example; teh old testament according to the '
Bible may be Genesis-Malachi; the old testament according to scripture (application) is the law of Moses. Easy guideline; Can one have the law of Moses before Moses was born? (The 'old testament' was done away when Christ died on the cross; Hebrews).
2007-08-17 02:59:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7
·
0⤊
1⤋