1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Defining "Perfect"

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Dec 29, 2004.

  1. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong. The above mentioned drivel is uneducated, KJVOnly lies. If God protected His word from errors in the transmission of the text, then why are there differences/errors/discrepancies in ALL the extant manuscripts available-- even to the ones that the KJV is based upon?

    Wrong again. This is again another KJVOnly lie, and at best, a poor a priori argument. Whether one believes in his own erroneous falsehood doesn't make it right. See the previous comments made about the transmission of the Hebrew OT/Greek NT text. All manuscripts have errors in them. The copying of manuscripts by fallible men have allowed errors into every manuscript. The manuscript evidence, even those that were used in the KJV translation, is overwhelmingly in contradiction to KJVOnly 'beliefs' about their supposed 'error free and perfect KJV'. To deny this fact is saying that the world is flat.

    A 'perfect' God allowed errors to enter into the transmission of the text of the Bible. That is a fact. This is typical KJVonly logic, if you can call it that. It is rather a bunch of lies, founded on falsehood, deceit, and error. The KJV has errors, and despite its textual, translational, and doctrinal biases, God chose to use it according to his sovereign will.
     
  2. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
  3. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry, Greg, but LRL is right.
     
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    Can we draw the conclusion that "perfect" in Matthew 5:48 as it applies to us in a human and practical way does not mean "sinless" perfection or "flawless" perfection"?

    HankD
     
  5. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gregory,

    You will need to answer a few questions, then.

    1. Which extant Greek manuscript is 100% identical to the original autographs?

    2. On what Biblical authority do you claim that translators are guided by God to produce their work without error. We have such Scripture for the autographs. We do not have such for translations.

    3. On what Biblical authority do you itentify those who may have been supernatually empowered by God to perform translation work inerrantly? Do any such people exist today?

    Andy
     
  6. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The problem with trying to define "perfect" is that so many have their own standards, and even these standards change accordig to the occassion.

    For example, I will tell you my wife is perfect, because I love her and she means more to me than the world. Is she "perfect"? Not really, if you want to define it strictly.

    The snarl to having a biblical definition of "perfect" is that KJVO's do not want to even consider what the meaning of the original word is. "Perfect" usually means "whole, complete, not lacking anything", contrary to the KJVO definition.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  7. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally poated by Gregory Perry Sr.:
    ________________________________________________
    I'll remind you that even though God definitely and without question INSPIRED the originals,He used "error-prone"imperfect men to PEN the very WORDS He wanted written and recorded....and DIVINELY PROTECTED them as they did it.He is a SUPERNATURAL,PERFECT God.He can(and I believe DID)insure that those very WORDS are not only transmitted down through the ages in perfect form...but ALSO see to it that they are translated into the various languages that developed over time....IN EQUALLY PERFECT FORM.Why is that so hard for anyone that claims to believe in our PERFECT God to accept???...unless maybe man in his own pride wants to have the final say on what IS and what ISN'T TRUTH.God is PERFECT....and He uses IMPERFECT MEN to accomplish His PERFECT work....and insures and protects the end result to HIS OWN GLORY!He does NO LESS when it comes to His Perfect WORD.....WHICH...He "magnifies" above His own name.
    _________________________________________________

    I must stand beside brother Gregory on this...
    If we say that God did not in fact insure that His word was kept pure/Holy/understandable from generation to generation, We in my opinion do two things: We render God impotent or uncaring, and we bring into suspicion the Bible as we have it today.
    If our Bible is indeed suspect, then what parts should we discard as false? Perhaps those passages that we don't particularly like?
    Furthermore, if this is the case, and God did not keep His word for us; then our faith has all the relevance and truth of pantheism or the worship of a tree, and we reduce the living God to the realm of myth and fantasy. There is IMHO no other logical option available to us if we make these assumptions.
    I praise God that in all of the various translations that I have read, (to include Spanish and German), All have said the same thing, and the only differences are due to the vagarities of language.....As to substance, they are all in agreement!
    Also, I must take umbrage to the reference to KJVo-ism, as this has nothing to do with that particular "bent"....this has to do with God's ability to (by His Holy Spirit) keep His word to us today.
     
  8. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    P.S.
    Trotter,
    And Here I though my Wife was the only perfect Wife (chuckle, chuckle).
     
  9. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How does this apply to the several different historic and undeniable revisions/editions of the King James Bible? Which of them is "perfect" by the definition above seeing that there are hundreds of differences between them?

    If they all are "perfect" then that perfection can not mean a "jot" and "tittle" perfection spoken of by the Lord.

    And if not, why cannot this same principle of different things being equally "perfect" apply to the NKJV or the NASB? And if not why does this "perfection" work for the several revsions/editions of the KJB (things different are not the same!) but not for the NKJB or NASB?

    HankD
     
  10. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank does indeed bring up a good point...
    However the question must be settled as to "differences". By this I mean: Do any of the differences we find in any way change the substance of the text, or modify the textual interpretation? Do these differences conflict one with the other as to the core doctrines of the Christian faith? If so, we indeed have a problem. If not, then is this not in itself a marvelous example of the way that God works through men to keep His word understandable?
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV's rendering "magnified thy word above all thy name" in Psalm 138:2 isn't the best possible translation. Most other BVs read, "along with all Your name" or "according to all Your name". Just about anyone proficient in Hebrew will tell you that. I have asked several different Jews about this and they all agree...in the written Hebrew there's no word between "your word" & "all your name" so it's up to the English translator to supply something that allows the sentence to make sense in English, and "above" is ADDING to the meaning of the verse. I don't believe "above" here is perfect.

    OUR definitions of "perfect" don't really matter concerning God's word...GOD'S definition is the one that matters.

    WHICH RENDITION of the "Lord's Prayer" as written in the KJV is the "perfect" one according to mankind's standard...The Matthew 6 version or the Luke 11 version? Evidently they BOTH meet GOD'S definition of perfect, since they're both within His word, in similar form in every valid Bible in every language I've ever heard of. I've been told this by every multilingual Christian I've ever spoken with about the differences between the Gospels.

    The writings within one version should be much-more alike than the writings BETWEEN versions. Therefore, whatever standards of "perfect" one uses for the differences between the narrations of the same events WITHIN a given version MUST BE APPLIED to the differences between versions, or else one is using a DOUBLE STANDARD.
     
  12. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop nailed it on the head...
    Once again, in order that our discussion may be fruitful, I believe that we must come to a common consensus regarding the inferred meaning of "perfect".
    I'll illustrate my point with another rendition from the Hebrew with a passage that is, I believe, familiar to us all:
    In Deuteronomy 6:4 we have in our bibles "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."(NKJV). Sh'ma Yisroel, Adonoi eluhanu, Adonoi echad.(please forgive the butchering of the transliteration). The word translated as "one" is the Hebrew word "echad". Echad is not "one" as in "I have one book, or I have one brain cell left operational". In fact the word "echad" has no direct correlation to any single word in the English Language, as the word "echad" expresses the idea of oneness out of plurality,(best I can do). I would say that this is an allusion to the triune nature of God. Again, in Genesis the word for God used in the passage: "In the beginning God created...." is the Hebrew word Elohim...literally Gods (plural). By what standard then is perfection met? I believe that both Genesis 1:1 and Deut 6:4 are "perfect" in the sense that they are true without any mixture of error. Certainly the ancient Jews understood the inferred meaning, even as Our Lord has given us understanding today.
     
  13. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Regarding Ps 138:2, roby said:

    &gt;"above all thy name" ... isn't the best possible translation. Most other BVs read, "along with all Your name" or "according to all Your name". Just about anyone proficient in Hebrew will tell you that...in the written Hebrew there's no word between "your word" & "all your name" so it's up to the English translator to supply something that allows the sentence to make sense in English, and "above" is ADDING to the meaning of the verse.

    This is actually incorrect, although now stated for a second time by roby (by oversight I neglected to comment previously, but should have).

    The Hebrew text is quite clear: KI HIGDALTA `AL KOL SHIMKA 'IMRATEKA (literally, following original order: "because you have made great *over*/*above*/*upon* all your name your word").

    So in this context there indeed *is* a word translated "over" or "above" (`AL).

    One can compare in parallel the same Hebrew phraseology in e.g., Ps 95:3, where YHWH is the "great king *over*/*above* all gods"; Ps 96:4, "he is to be feared *over*/*above* all gods"; likewise Ps 97:9; Ps 113:4; Ps 145:9 and many other places.

    I note that the ESV offers a legitimate alternate rendering: "For you have exalted above all things your name and your word" (the more traditional option appears in a footnote).

    So, in the context of Ps 138:2, there is no need to "supply" anything in order to make sense. I hope this clarifies.
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have noticed the ESV often uses alternate renderings. Not necessarily wrong, mind you, just different.

    I have questioned many of these places, but always come to the conclusion that it is a legitimate "alternate" text.

    That is one reason I like the ESV--it often adds a different perspective without changing the meaning.
     
  15. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do we know that the originals are perfect?
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    The originals, as penned by the authors, are perfect because they are God-breathed, and God is perfect.
     
  17. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this found in the bible?
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    "All scriptures are given by inspiration of God..."
    "God, who cannot lie..."
    "I am the Lord, I change not"

    Pretty clear to me.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ziggy...I shall defer to your take on this. Two of the Jews I asked looked into their writings, which I had no idea what they are writings OF...whether it's the OT in Hebrew or something else. They were books with Hebrew writing on the covers also.

    The material they wrote for me was the Hebrew written into the English aplhabet, ans it didn't include 'al'. Again, I don't know what their sources were. perhaps I'll ask one or both of them when next I see either of them.

    But again, I defer to YOUR opinion. Those Jews are opinionated, though friendly, knowing they're talking to a CHRISTIAN, while YOU have the WHOLE BIBLE in overview.

    Perhaps the ESV translators have an overview in mind that Scripture exalts God's NAME quite often and we're told to not use it incorrectly, so therefore they've rendered their translation so it doesn't make the words greater than the name of the Author.

    BTW, here's a link to the Tanakh for Hebrew readers:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/tan/
     
  20. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok, but you said the originals, as penned by the authors. I'm not denying that these were perfect, as they were scripture. But how do we say that only the originals meet this criteria. The word says all scripture.

    John 5:39
    Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    Jesus told the Jews that the scriptures testified of Him, and that the should search them. Did they have the originals to search? Or did they merely have copies of the originals? Would a copy of the original be considered scripture, if all scripture is inspired and only the originals are inspired?

    Ac 17:11
    These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

    Whatever scripture is, the Bereans had it, and searched it.
     
Loading...