2 Timothy says nothing about individual interpretation and neither does Sola Scriptura. If you want to invent definitions for the doctrines of other faiths you are free to do so, but you will still be in error.
One more point: Scripture at the time 2 Tim was written was not canonized. When they talked about the Scripture, the Apostles referred to what we now call the OT or, more correctly, Old Covenant.
If you believe that the Apostles were only writing of themselves then you are right. However, if you believe that the NT and the OT are God-breathed, then both are scripture, and every reference to scripture in the NT applies to both the OT and the NT.
Sola Scriptura does not advocate individual interpretation? Whose interpretations were these that you have advocated on this thread all along? They sure were not apostolic. Let me ask a direct question: what to you think 2 Timothy say about the scripture?
And whose interpretation are you following, FK? Let me guess: it's yours, but it's "guided" by the Holy Spirit?
You know, there can be only one Truth, and not tens of thousands of them, which is what the Sola Scriptura community is: a multitude of self-righteous interpretations of the same Truth!
You keep ignoring the fact that (1) the bible was not available for people to study for at least 300 years after the Lord departed from earth. The individual scrolls, mixed with various gnostic forgeries, were not cataloged, or neatly indexed with corss-references, for an average middle East farmer to sit next to an oil lamp and read.
(2) When it became available, it did not look like our Bibles look today, neatly divided into sections with explanatory notes such as my Thomas Nelson's KJV, with the Lord's words in red. (3) The only people who knew anything about the faith were church fathers, bishops, priests and deacons who were schooled in the faith and could use the Scriptures for reference and understand them the way a doctor can use references otherwise unintelligible to a lay person because it rewuires more than reading comprehension — it requires a synesis of many aspects of knowledge.
Except for those who were specially gifted to become apsotles, as sounding borads through whom God spoke directly to the people, the rest of us have to learn.
(4) Even if the Bible were available, the majority (90% or more) of the population was illiterate. (5) The Bible in the west was written in Latin whereas the majority of the people did not speak that language. (6) Even when they were translated from Latin into native tongues (German, English), you still had to contend with the vast majority of people being unschooled and therefore incapable of reading the Bible, let along understanding it. (7) Even when education became more widespread and people could at least read, the Bibles were not cheap and readily affordable for an average person.
Thus, it is clear that if God wanted us to use "sola scriptura" He would have devised a better plan to spread His Truth among all nations. And He did — He established His Church. That Church now contains some 1.5 billion people (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) who share 99% of that Truth (which is why both are called "catholic"), the 1% being a vestige of human inability to properly express that which we both know — by concensus, as always.
Does the NT call ITSELF "God-breathed"?
Does the Gospels call themselves "God-breathed"? How do you know that Philemon or Jude is "God-breathed"? The funny thing is that you still don't get it...
Do you really think that the Bible fell out of the sky already put together and "God-breathed", verified by an angel in the sky?
Regards
"If you believe that the Apostles were only writing of themselves then you are right. However, if you believe that the NT and the OT are God-breathed, then both are scripture, and every reference to scripture in the NT applies to both the OT and the NT."
FK, the last sentence is Mohammadenism. You should try toi avoid that! :)