Defining "Perfect"

Alright, so does that mean that ALL scriptures, no matter what translation, are given my inspiration of God.

Good News for Modern Man?
The NIV?

 

Thats the question of the year, isn't it

 

I am missing your point here, my friend.

 

Once again, do we not need to reach a consensus as to what constitutes "perfection"?

 

The 'scriptures' that we have say all scripture. So either we do not have the scriptures, or we do. If there is scripture available to us today, it must inspired, or it wouldn't be scripture, would it? If Jesus could tell the Jews to search the scriptures, then they must have had something that they considered to be inspired. I can't help but notice they were not told to go ask the scribes. If the Jews had scriptures then, I don't think we could argue they had the originals.

So now what? We can't argue that only the originals were inspired, can we? That is the party line, but is it scriptural?

 

Yes, and maybe what constitutes scripture as well.

 

Help me out. Feel free to cite verses. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 

This verse has nothing to do with scriptural texts or translations.

 

None of these verses refer to scripture being "perfect". Scripture does claim, though, to be divinely inspired and without error in regards to truth.

 

The author was actually referring to OT scriptures, since the NT writings we refer to as scriptures had not yet been compiled, and many of the NT books had not yet been penned. It is fitting aand proper, however, for the Christian to view the NT as inspired as the OT.

Jesus was referring the the scriptures of the time, which was the OT as we know it today.

 

None of these verses refer to scripture being "perfect". Scripture does claim, though, to be divinely inspired and without error in regards to truth. </font>[/QUOTE]I contend that a perfect God...

...who cannot lie and is unchangeable is incapable of breathing imperfect scriptures.

 

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I believe it has to do with it indirectly because it has to do with the biblical definition of "perfect" which some one else asked about.

My comment/question was that in this case does "perfect" mean "sinless perfection"?

While inspiration was "perfect" in it's inception of the autographs, man did not see to it to cooperate with God in it's perfect preservation which is evident by the condition of the manuscripts.

God intended it to be perfect and originally gave it to us in that manner, we messed it up.

HankD

 

There is no arguement that what God inspired is perfect. Neither is there any arguement that message contained therein is perfect. However, that does not equate to every scribble of text being factually error free, since those scribbles were written by men. The message was given by God, but the scribbles were written by men. Big difference. God inspired the scriptures perfectly, and scripture says so. But He did not dictate them, and scripture does not say He did. When we insist that God dictated the scriptures perfectly, we add to scripture, and are guilty of the same thing we accuse KJVOists of.

 

There are places in the King James Bible (for instance) that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament and they are substantially different. In fact as different as two different versions. So on the one hand in the Old Testament we are given the masoretic text and in the other case where it is quoted in the NT we are given the Septuagint (call it whatever you want). In some cases the NT version of the OT adds and/or takes away words when compared to the Hebrew Masora Text.

All that to say or rather ask, So what, what does your statement prove James?

What the Greek/Aramaic translations prove is that in Jesus day there was at least two translations (Greek and Aramaic) that didn't agree word-for-word with the Hebrew and in some cases departed significantly from the Hebrew.

Based upon those facts, IMO, the NASB has as much right to be called the inspired by derivation text (AKA "Scripture") as the KJV or the Geneva, etc.

HankD

 

How do you separate 'the message' from the 'scribbles'? If 'the message' is inspired, but the 'scribbles' are unimportant, then how do we know that scribbles like The Message are not inspired? How can you make an argument that the words are not important, and then say you have to go to the original words to find the message?

 

There are places in the King James Bible (for instance) that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament and they are substantially different. In fact as different as two different versions. So on the one hand in the Old Testament we are given the masoretic text and in the other case where it is quoted in the NT we are given the Septuagint (call it whatever you want). In some cases the NT version of the OT adds and/or takes away words when compared to the Hebrew Masora Text.

All that to say or rather ask, So what, what does your statement prove James?

What the Greek/Aramaic translations prove is that in Jesus day there was at least two translations (Greek and Aramaic) that didn't agree word-for-word with the Hebrew and in some cases departed significantly from the Hebrew.

Based upon those facts, IMO, the NASB has as much right to be called the inspired by derivation text (AKA "Scripture") as the KJV or the Geneva, etc.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]So could we say that inspiration may also be a matter of degrees? If a bible, a collection of scriptures, is to be considered inspired, it could only be to the degree that what it contained agreed with what God said? Or is inspired on/off like a light switch?

 

The words are important for instance to correct an erroneous translation such as the statement "God forbid" several places in the KJV where no Greek mss or ancient translation (Itala, Peshitto), etc) has those words.

HankD

 

Derived inspiration is in relationship to the inspired text. For instance "Easter" of Acts 12:4 is not in the inspired Koine text and does not derive its inspiration. The inspired text uses the word "pascha" the Greek koine word for "passover".

Unless of course one believes that the English corrects the Greek.

HankD

 

OK, so I suppose that if I had to define a perfect bible at this point in the discussion, I would say it was
1. the most inspired bible available
2. contained the message that God intended me to recieve
3. was profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness

sound reasonable?

 

If by "the most inspired" you mean direct inspiration as opposed to derived inspiration then that would be the Greek and Hebrew original language Scriptures.

Assuming it was not tainted with doctrinal prejudice (such as the use of the word "bishop" in the KJV for which Baptists were persecuted for when they objected to it) or at least you knew where these improper translations were.

Assuming (if you could not read biblical Greek and Hebrew) that said Bible was faithful to those original language mss.

My opinions of course.

HankD