All scripture is NOT inspired of YHWH
One of the passages of Scripture most often quoted to support the premise that "all Scripture" is given by "inspiration of YHWH, is II Tim 3: 16. The passage is invariably used as an authoritative Bible statement, that we can rest assured that all that we see written in the Bible, can be used with the assurance, that every word quoted in the passage, or sentence under consideration, is the inspired word and is therefore fully reliable. Notwithstanding, that there are many passages in Scripture, that record the words of very "un-inspired" folks, like from an "adversary" (a satan) or the words of various unscrupulous people (like the Pharisees) that are to say the least, quite remote from being, what one might consider inspired. There are also many Ancient writings, like civil documents, land sales, receipts, etc.
This being the case, is ALL Scripture really inspired? Or, is some Scripture inspired, and some not? Let’s do an analytical study on the issue, and see for ourselves if ALL Scripture is inspired of YHWH.
A logical analysis of II Tim. 3:16, From the KJV of the Bible, we have the following quote:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of YHWH, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
As we begin to correctly review this sentence, we immediately notice, (or should notice), that the word "is" is in italic, an indication in the KJV and most other versions of the Bible, that this word is NOT found in the original sentence. The verb "is" has been added by the translators in this sentence, because it was thought to be required for correct English. However, since this verb has been added, the question can be asked, is the verb "is" properly located in the sentence?
If we make the assumption that the verb "is" is correctly located, then it appears that we can assume that All Scripture "is" inspired by YHWH. In order to continue with our study, we should also review the word "scripture" since it is this that we are confirming as being "inspired."
Upon further study we will discover that the word "scripture" is a Latin word, "from scriptural, or scriptum, a writing." The basic root meaning of the Latin word "scriptum" in English is "writing," So, why are we using the Latin word? Using the English definition of the word "writing" rather than the Latin word "scripture" our re-worded English translation of II Tim. 3: 16 would now read:
16 All writing is given by inspiration of YHWH, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Even though this is a correct translation of the passage in English, (if we continue to use the added “is”) we are immediately struck with the realization, that this cannot be a correct or true statement. All writing cannot be given by inspiration of YHWH. Since we know without any doubt that there are many writings in this world, and in the Bible, that cannot be attributed as being inspired, this statement cannot be "true" as the KJV has it translated.
The conclusion we must make, is that the statement, "All writing is given by inspiration of YHWH ......." is false. However, if we remove the first added verb "is" from the passage; it will now read as:
16 All writing given by inspiration of YHWH, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This is a correct translation of the passage, but reads a bit awkward because of the primary particle "and," It is also awkward because of the location of the second verb "is" which was also added by the KJV translators, because it is printed in italic type.
If we take the liberty of removing the primary particle "and" the passage will now read as:
16 All writing given by inspiration of YHWH is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The passage now appears to read correctly and is in proper English, but we have removed a word. It has been commonly acceptable to "add" words to make a Bible passage read correctly in English, but what about removing words? Are we now tampering with or changing the original meaning? Is there another solution? How does the passage under consideration really read in Greek, and will it stand correctly in English when directly translated from the Greek without additions of deletions?
The English word "writing" in Greek is "graph" from "grapho" (to in-grave), or to scribe, to write. It is where we get our English word "graph." The English word "writing" is a perfect use for the Greek word "graphe." What about the primary particle the word "and." In Greek the word translated "and" is "kai."
Kai is a very common particle in Greek, and can be given may English alternates, subject to proper context. "Kai" is defined and used in English as "and, also, even, so, then, too, if, or, that, then, therefore, when, yet" etc. to quote a few examples.
If we replace the "and" with the word "also" and keep the second verb "is" the passage will now read:
16 All writing given by inspiration of YHWH is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The passage now reads correctly and in proper English. We have not deleted any words, and have added only one English word for maintaining correct English. We have also shown that all writing is NOT inspired, and NOT ALL writing is profitable for doctrine. Only those writings that ARE inspired are profitable.
The correct rendering of II Tim. 3: 16 from Greek reads as follows:
16 Every writing inspired of YHWH, is also profitable for teaching, for proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: so that complete may be the man of YHWH, having been thoroughly fitted for every good work.
All rights reserved, Assembly of Yahweh, Cascade
This document may be freely reproduced without changes for educational purposes
 YHWH, Hebrew =YaHWeH is the proper name of the Almighty Sovereign Creator Power of all that exists from the Scriptures. Yahweh is the “Life-Force” essence that fills the entire universe; some in error refer to Him using the word G-d.