This question already has an answer here:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16)
Certainly the New Testament wasn't available to the writer at the time, and most likely he'd not seen any of the letters therein. So, when he writes "all scripture" would he have been including his writing of 2 Timothy 3:16, since he'd have no way of knowing that it would be considered "scripture" as he was writing it? And would he have been including "any" books of the new testament since he'd not seen any of it? Or, is he simply referring to the OT?
Also, keeping in mind the rule of testimony and testifying on one's own behalf.
According to your site and it’s writings: The word for "scripture" in the Greek text is (ἡ) γραφή, often occurring in the plural, (τῆς) γραφῆς, which literally means "writing(s)."
So then: “Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof,”
Could be stated: “Every writing inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof,” T herefore it could be said that: “Any” writing(s) could be found to be “inspired by God”.
Which leads us to the question: Who’s to say?
Makes one wonder how many of the great poets and writers we’ve had sent in disguise to warn as prophets or lead as teachers that have been exempt from canonization.
Amy Grant, Neil Young, Charles Bukowski, C.S. Lewis, Steve Martin… you get the idea. I suppose then it comes down to man arguing with man on who’s inspired by God and who isn’t.
You’ve opened up a can of worm holes for me.