Naysayers! Believers! Draw your swords!

What the hell do the Pharisees have to do with it? You need to learn more about the Pharisees. Just because your boy Jesus bad-mouthed them is not evidence that they had any influence on language.

Here's my first asseveration:
2Timothy 3:16 implies that all of God's activities of the so called 'Old Testament' should harmonize with the teachings of the apostles.

From the context of the chapter is seem clear that this and the very next "verse" are a part of the same "sentence". Here is a little closer translation IMHO:
2Ti 3:16-17
All Scripture (probably reference to Hebrew and some of Paul's works) is God-breathed (inspired) and profitable (beneficial) for doctrine (teaching method), for convincing, for correction (bringing other's into line), for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God (people of Theos) may be perfected (completed, also in a sense re-freshened), being fully furnished for every good work (beneficial actions).

The bulk of the 3rd chapter in 2 Timothy seems an appeal to correct the behavior of other followers of Paul's teachings. It seems primarily a call toward ethical behavior, using the authority of Hebrew and Pauline texts to add validity.

neologist wrote:

Here's my first asseveration:
2Timothy 3:16 implies that all of God's activities of the so called 'Old Testament' should harmonize with the teachings of the apostles.

MattDavis" wrote:

From the context of the chapter is seem clear that this and the very next "verse" are a part of the same "sentence". Here is a little closer translation IMHO:
2Ti 3:16-17
All Scripture (probably reference to Hebrew and some of Paul's works) is God-breathed (inspired) and profitable (beneficial) for doctrine (teaching method), for convincing, for correction (bringing other's into line), for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God (people of Theos) may be perfected (completed, also in a sense re-freshened), being fully furnished for every good work (beneficial actions).

The bulk of the 3rd chapter in 2 Timothy seems an appeal to correct the behavior of other followers of Paul's teachings. It seems primarily a call toward ethical behavior, using the authority of Hebrew and Pauline texts to add validity.

Neologist's interpretation of that passage is merely an ipse dixit seeing as how it lacks justification.

MattDavis' interpretation stresses a contextual reading, thereby making for a more persuasive argument.

No other person is rightly called "He who causes to become"

There are a number of places in the Christian scriptures where it is appropriate to use the name Jehovah.

For example, carefully compare 2Timothy 2:19, quoting Numbers 16:5.

Additionally, it seems most unlikely that the apostles, when using the term ordinarily translated 'God' would be referring to any god other than the Creator.

If you threaten me, I will provide you a few citations where Jesus emphasized his father's name.

Neologist wrote:

No other person is rightly called "He who causes to become"

Neologist wrote:

There are a number of places in the Christian scriptures where it is appropriate to use the name Jehovah.

Apparently Paul's letter to Timothy isn't one of them.

Neologist wrote:

For example, carefully compare 2Timothy 2:19, quoting Numbers 16:5.

Here is that part of Paul's letter to Timothy:
...ὁ μέντοι στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ Θεοῦ(Theos) ἕστηκεν, ἔχων τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην· ἔγνω Κύριος(The Lord/The Controller/The Master) τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ, καί· ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου(The Anointed).

...sure, nevertheless, hath the foundation of God(Theos) stood, having this seal, `The Lord knew those who are His,' and `Let him depart from unrighteousness--every one who is naming the name of Christ (The Anointed).'

Numbers 16:15 (word's reversed so they appear right to left)
Num 16:5 וידברH1696 אלH413 קרחH7141 ואלH413 כלH3605 עדתוH5712 לאמרH559 בקרH1242 וידעH3045 יהוהH3068(The self Existent/Yeh-ho-vaw'/Jewish national Name for God)
אתH853 אשׁרH834 לו ואתH853 הקדושׁH6918(kaw-doshe'/sacred in a ceremonial or moral way)
והקריבH7126 אליוH413 ואתH853 אשׁרH834 יבחרH977 בו יקריבH7126 אליו׃H413
..... and he speaketh unto Korah, and unto all his company, saying, `Morning! --and (Jehovah/Yahweh) is knowing those who are his, and those who are sacred, and brought them closer (with implication of perfection) to Him; even the one's He selects (baw-khar'/tries, selects, finds acceptable) those ones He brings closer (with implication of perfection).

You claim Paul's Letter to Timothy quotes Numbers. It does not.
You may perhaps claim that it makes allusions to Hebrew texts. The epistle makes no such quote.
Would you like to discuss the importance of Numbers 16:15 as it perhaps adds credence to a "loop hole" into becoming Jewish?

Neologist wrote:

Additionally, it seems most unlikely that the apostles, when using the term ordinarily translated 'God' would be referring to any god other than the Creator.

It seems unlikely to me that "the apostles" were in a worse position than you are at making determinations regarding when it was or was not appropriate to use various names for "God".
Are you claiming the 2nd epistle to Timothy is written by Paul or not?
The letter claims to be from Paul to Timothy. In the letter Paul also asks for Timothy to bring him Markus and to bring him his cloak (must be important) that he had to leave behind. This is because he is left only with Lukus, and he urges Timothy to come post-haste. He also tells Timothy those who have wronged him (Demas, Crescens, Titus abandoned him). Apparently Alexander the coppersmith was particularly wicked, because Paul confesses to Timothy that he hopes God will exhibit his justice upon him.

Neologist wrote:

If you threaten me, I will provide you a few citations where Jesus emphasized his father's name.

I would never threaten you.
I would even bring you the cloak you forgot should you ask for it.
That coppersmith on the other hand, he and I are going to have some words.

Numbers 16:5 from a readable Bible.

Neologist wrote:

Numbers 16:5 from a readable Bible.

A "readable" Bible?
Don't you mean a particular "translation" which you find acceptable?
Do you think that the Bible is divinely inspired or not?
The Bible was not written in English.
If you think God wrote The Book, why would you not want to know the words it was written in?

You aren't confessing much Your Jehoviah's Witness position is pretty obvious.

I would highly recommend that tool E-sword, that I linked to earlier. You can download almost any translation you like, plus it will familiarize you with the original texts. In terms of bias, that is a free tool offered by Christians (I have no idea what denomination, because they make no interference what so ever). It makes cross-referencing and learning the scriptures very easy.
I will warn you however you will find many things which do not conform to your understanding in the NWT. The NWT is of course not available on E-Sword. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has yet to allow their translation to be available for free at the site, nor do they allow it for a fee.
I don't know if their motivations are financial or theological.

Of course, I have yet to see any of my fellow "bible thumpers" signing in as yet.

The Bible is not a weapon.

It has been and still is a weapon of mass "deinstruction" and proselytizing.

InfraBlue wrote:

neologist wrote:

Here's my first asseveration:
2Timothy 3:16 implies that all of God's activities of the so called 'Old Testament' should harmonize with the teachings of the apostles.

MattDavis" wrote:

From the context of the chapter is seem clear that this and the very next "verse" are a part of the same "sentence". Here is a little closer translation IMHO:
2Ti 3:16-17
All Scripture (probably reference to Hebrew and some of Paul's works) is God-breathed (inspired) and profitable (beneficial) for doctrine (teaching method), for convincing, for correction (bringing other's into line), for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God (people of Theos) may be perfected (completed, also in a sense re-freshened), being fully furnished for every good work (beneficial actions).

The bulk of the 3rd chapter in 2 Timothy seems an appeal to correct the behavior of other followers of Paul's teachings. It seems primarily a call toward ethical behavior, using the authority of Hebrew and Pauline texts to add validity.

Neologist's interpretation of that passage is merely an ipse dixit seeing as how it lacks justification.

MattDavis' interpretation stresses a contextual reading, thereby making for a more persuasive argument.

emphasis mine
It does say all scripture, does it not? So, humor me as I claim that all of God's activities of the so called 'Old Testament' should harmonize with the teachings of the apostles.
Or, further, that all seeming contradictions or inaccuracies found anywhere in the Bible must have a logical explanation if the Bible is to be, as Paul claims " . . .beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight . ." (Continuation of vs. 16). If not, the Bible becomes, not a guide for salvation, but just another book.