While reading NIGTC on 2 Timothy 3:16, the author writes:
γραφή (NT 50x [30x singular], Pl. 14x [9x singular]) was used in the Greek of the day for any piece of writing, but in the NT it is used only of holy scripture (BAGD s.v. 2; cf. G. Schrenk, TDNT I, 751ff.). This is borne out by its use here in parallel with ἱερὰ γράμματα (v. 15). Singular γραφή is often used in the NT of a particular passage of scripture (BAGD s.v. 2a; Schrenk, 752f.), and some have claimed that this is its only use (e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 147). Nonetheless, it is also used in the NT for scripture as a whole (see BAGD s.v. 2bβ for examples; Schrenk, 753–55; Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, 236–39).
Knight, G. W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles : A commentary on the Greek text (445). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.
Though he doesn't out-and-out say it, you could easily read that BAGD supports that graphe has the meaning "holy scripture", and that further the singular usage of graphe could refer to either a "particular passage" or "scripture as a whole." And technically, he has said nothing wrong. All assertions are correct. However BAGD s.v 2a lists 2 Tim 3:16 ONLY as referring to a "particular passage". It does not list that reference as also possibly meaning "as a whole." And this is a particular bone of contention in the translation of 3:16.
Now, BAGD isn't necessarily saying 2 Tim 3:16 cannot mean "as a whole" but you have to wonder that that is the way the editors/authors have intended it to mean, especially since "particular scripture" is the only definition given for 2 tim 3:16 in a specific sense. Knight skirts over BAGD on this matter (and the more recent BDAG does also).
As for myself, I (probably incorrectly) first read Knight as implying that BAGD supported his view that graphe in 3:16 could mean either. While the definitions BAGD gives could mean either, it seems clear BAGD itself only means the singular sense for 2 Tim 3:16. It was only after checking BAGD that I realized what they said explicitly about 2 Tim 3:16 to the exclusion of the view that Knight himself comes to.
So, you feel me? This is not a grievous example, but it calls to mind many times that I would check Biblical references while reading NIDNTT articles that I would say "how the heck does this scripture support his point?" Check your resources and don't take the authors word for it . . . 