Noticed that when I said "perfect instruction of righteousness", it wasn't quoted. I paraphrased the verse.
Now let me quote.
"... for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
I take that to mean that "the man of God", in this case someone who is writing, will be "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." I take that to mean he will be perfectly prepared to transcribe "for the "instruction of righteousness". As stated earlier in the verse, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God", and when put in context with the rest of the verse, as well as what I have quoted here, I concluded that God is speaking through the man, perfectly and clearly, so that the man may best be prepared in transcribing the word of God in all his good works.
If I am misinterpreting the verse, please enlighten me as to what the actual meaning of it is. If I am wrong, then I apologize for carrying this on. I am simply trying to explain and defend my reasoning.
In reference to your statement...
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 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.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
I mistakenly interpreted perfect instruction of righteousness as the definitive recording of the word of God. I was further mistakened, assuming that such perfect instruction could not be left to interpretation.
Ultimately, on both sides of the religion aspect of this issue, people do not make it clear what the implications are if evolution was used as the tool for the creation of the array of life we see on Earth, and for other life that may exist elsewhere in the universe. Never once in any sacred, irrefutable text in which a creation theory was explicitly mention was there any description of the process being guided by evolution.
These texts are supposed to be definitive. No room for interpretation. If you are a follower of a belief structure that proclaims a creation theory that does not explicitly describes evolution as its guiding force, how can you possibly negotiate at all with the evolutionary process? If the fundamental explanation of life in one of these religion/philosophies can be left up to interpretation thousands of years later based on new information, what about this way of thinking is off limits? At what point does the interpretation of that belief structure stop? At what point are you a follower of this most certainly unified set of beliefs, or just someone that picks and chooses aspects that you can rationalize and feel comfortable with?
Examining new theories, viewpoints, and evidence in the name of understanding the world we live in is worthwhile in my opinion, even if we come to find that we don't have it exactly right all the time. This way of thinking is much different than trying to fit a rigid, archaic thought structure into a modern world, with realities that contradict its very foundations - realities that cannot simply be ignored or wished away.
Slashdot Mirror
Noticed that when I said "perfect instruction of righteousness", it wasn't quoted. I paraphrased the verse.
Now let me quote.
"... for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
I take that to mean that "the man of God", in this case someone who is writing, will be "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." I take that to mean he will be perfectly prepared to transcribe "for the "instruction of righteousness". As stated earlier in the verse, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God", and when put in context with the rest of the verse, as well as what I have quoted here, I concluded that God is speaking through the man, perfectly and clearly, so that the man may best be prepared in transcribing the word of God in all his good works.
If I am misinterpreting the verse, please enlighten me as to what the actual meaning of it is. If I am wrong, then I apologize for carrying this on. I am simply trying to explain and defend my reasoning.
Ultimately, on both sides of the religion aspect of this issue, people do not make it clear what the implications are if evolution was used as the tool for the creation of the array of life we see on Earth, and for other life that may exist elsewhere in the universe. Never once in any sacred, irrefutable text in which a creation theory was explicitly mention was there any description of the process being guided by evolution.
These texts are supposed to be definitive. No room for interpretation. If you are a follower of a belief structure that proclaims a creation theory that does not explicitly describes evolution as its guiding force, how can you possibly negotiate at all with the evolutionary process? If the fundamental explanation of life in one of these religion/philosophies can be left up to interpretation thousands of years later based on new information, what about this way of thinking is off limits? At what point does the interpretation of that belief structure stop? At what point are you a follower of this most certainly unified set of beliefs, or just someone that picks and chooses aspects that you can rationalize and feel comfortable with?
Examining new theories, viewpoints, and evidence in the name of understanding the world we live in is worthwhile in my opinion, even if we come to find that we don't have it exactly right all the time. This way of thinking is much different than trying to fit a rigid, archaic thought structure into a modern world, with realities that contradict its very foundations - realities that cannot simply be ignored or wished away.