Maybe I am misunderstanding you.....but are you saying the bible is not necessary at all?
the second clause refers to the man of God (priest, minister, preacher)
If the man of God may be throughly furnished by scripture, why could not anyone else be. I believe we are to apply scripture to our own lives, and IF this is talking about priests, etc. it could also be applied to anyone.
also its saying the man of MAY be complete, equipped...not that scripture is in itself..
Isn't this the argument that was used done in Florida by the Dems. during the election 2 yrs ago:) No offense.
If read properly may be means can be. Greek lexicon.
When you apply this same principle to James 1:4 you have to say we only need steadfastness...
Two different topics, two different implications.
Becky
That is called begging the question. The man of God needs Scripture to be thoroughly furnished. That is what the Scripture says.
What it does not say is that the man of God only needs Scripture. That is what we are asking you to show.
When you apply this same principle to James 1:4 you have to say we only need steadfastness...
Two different topics, two different implications.
So, then, we need to add a new rule to the "principles of Bible interpretation?" If the subject is Scripture, then "essential" means "sufficient." If the subject is anything else, like steadfastness, then "essential" only means "essential."
Why do you read the two differently? Could it be that you want the Scripture to say that it is sufficient?
SD