"The Bible is the perfect"

The context of 1Cor 13 is talking about agape, God's perfect love. Thehe "perfect" discussed here is the next life, being with God, enjoying His presence in heaven for eternity. It is not talking about scriptural texts.

As far as the "perfect" being the Bible, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. It is a gratuitous assumption, an eisegesis, and a preconceived notion with no objective support. Besides, there was no formulated NT at the time Paul wrote this. So the hyperdispensationalist and single-traslation-onlyist has no leg to stand on here.

No, there have not. There have been many discussions in which some individuals ascribe that only their translation (the KJV) is the "right" version, despite the lack of scriptural support for their view. If scriptuer here is talking about only one version, and that version is the KJV, then all those with foreign language biblies have the wrong bible. And Paul would have had the wrong one as well, since his was in Hebrew or Greek, and his own writings were in Greek.

The only "perfect" bible that adheres to your definition would be a koine Greek transcription.

Thice this verse isn't about scriptural texts, and since your definition of perfect in this application is seriously flawed, the point is moot.

 

I know quite a few people who believe that "the perfect" refers to the completion of the canon, but they seem to accept that mostly as a way of discounting modern charismatic manifestations. It's more likely that "the perfect" refers to the return of Christ and the consummation that will follow.

 

Your question is moot.
In fact it has already been answered and either you missed it or did not accept it.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All Scripture is inspired.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Scripture did not come by the will of man. It came as holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Those holy men of God were not the KJV translators, nor the translators of the NIV, or the NASV, WEB, ASV, or any other version. They were the prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament. The only writings which are actually inspired are those writings which those "holy men of God" wrote. We have copies of those manuscripts. God has preserved his Word in various manuscripts. But we don't have the inspired documents any longer. The Bible was inspired in the original manuscripts of the writers of the Bible.

When a translation is made, it is made from the original languages from which the Bible was written in (Hebrew and Greek). The discrepancy between the KJV (and NKJV) with the other MV's is from the group of manuscripts they were taken from. The KJV was translated from the Majority Text (Received Text), and the others taken from the Critical Text. Past that I don't want to get into a discussion that you can read in the BV/T forum.

Thus as far as the "perfect" which means "complete" both in English and in Greek; the Bible was completed near the end of the first century with the completion of the Book of Revelation in 96 A.D.
DHK

 

tamborine lady: //What I am asking now is this. If that is true, then which bible do we use. This is not a stupid question, because there are differences in each new translation.//

1. 'this' is not true

2. This is 'a stupid* question'. The English
language contains manyh ways to say the same
thing. Just because each new translation
may contain a different word or 10,000 does
not mean that God is limited in sharing
His truth with mankind. BTW, the Holy Spirit
is needed, even with the completed Bible Canon -
the Holy Spirit helps us understand the
words in the Bible. The message of God is
the WORD of God, not the specific 'words of God'.

*your term, i'd call it a non-productive question

 

Since the OP premise is flawed, and since that flaw has already been discussed, no other response is necessary.

Those people are completely wrong, as already noted.

It is a stupid question, because it's based on a flawed, incorrect, and stupid premise. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. A perfect translation is impossible. That is due to the inhierent nature of translating from one or more languages to another. Etymological, contextual, and grammarical rules of one language are not the same from one language to another. That's a fact. Also a fact is that language evolves and adapts over time. A 100 year old translation will use different words and phrases as a 1 year old translation.

What a person often needs more than the Comforter is a deeper understanding of source text languages. The Comforter will help you understand what scripture is telling you, but a deeper understanding of source text languages will help you understand the original context and intent of the author. A mature Christian will be able to discern between the two.

 

If the premise of the origional post is correct then it refers to texts in existance when it was written of which we have none and neither do we know which texts to which it refers.

 

Since no translation is perfect (and that is fact, not a belief), it's not a matter of agreement or disagreement.

What have the poor done for 2000 years? The issue of the poor is by no means adequate support for the false doctrines of single-translation-onlyism or of perfect-translationism.

In fact, I was poor when I came to the Lord, and as a former poor dude, I find the notion that the poor are somehow in need of a "perfect bible" rather insulting. (Fear not, Tam, you didn't make the insult, so this is not directed at you, but to the premise in general).

 

Placing translations on the same level as the manuscripts is not a good thing to do. It only causes problems. Serious scholars generally do not use the translations, prefering to work from the original languages. Nearly all will tell you that many of the tranlations are faithful to the original languages. I say nearly all because some such as "The Message" take great liberties with the text, but translations such as the ESV, NASB, NIV, GWtN, KJV, NKJV all do a decent job of representing the original languages in English.

God's word is perfect, translations aren't. As the archeological evidence accrues it is amazing how well preserved the text is.

The original languages are readily accessible, I happen to own 3 Greek texts and 1 Hebrew text, not including BibleWorks. All Lutheran pastors are trained to read the original languages (some better than others). For people who don't have the time to study Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, I recommend they buy a couple translations to study from NIV and ESV are the ones I generally recommend. For easy reads I recommend God's Word to the Nations. If they have a question, well that is what God gave us Pastors for.

 

Yes

 

It is, however, an absolute fact. Every translation has imperfections, ambiguities, and, if the language has changed since the translation was issued, errors. Not a single translation is immune to this.

Just because one thinks it's unsound thinking, that doesn't make it less of a fact.

 

There is not a translation in creation that I cannot use to point a person to Jesus, and show the way of salvation. Even the imperfections convey the thoughts of scripture, which is all we need to come to the essential truths of the Word.

In my opinion, "when that which is perfect comes..." refers to the coming of the Lord Jesus and not scripture at all,,,,but that which is imperfect will pass away.....All the non essential things of this word including the imperfect words.

Cheers,

Jim

 

"What are poor people supposed to do? I mean people who do not have access to all the resources that are available? What bible should they read? If they have a "hard to understand version", how can they understand?"

This is one of the reasons the bible was first translated into English.

BTW, "perfect" means mature or complete, so yes all versions are complete. So they are all perfect.

 

The issue is not which translation one can use to lead a person to Christ; but rather which translation is closest to the original manuscripts which the Apostles used. I was led to the Lord by an individual using "Good News for Modern Man," which leaves out the blood 19 times, and is simply a paraphrase, not even a translation.

Secondly "the perfect" cannot refer to Jesus Christ, for the Greek "to telion" is in the neuter gender, while Christ is a man. It must therefore refer to the Word of God, as it is also in the context of God's revelation. At any rate the very gender of the words in question discounts the idea of it referring to Christ.
DHK

 

The context seems to imply knowledge, or understanding, of the mysteries of God, the hidden truths of God, or of the Scriptures.

I think it refers to a unity of understanding, when the saints of God shed off their imperfect understanding of the doctrines of God which they have here in time.

For example, the doctrine of the triune God will be to those who live in that eternity future a completely understood doctrine.

Matthew Henry, in his commentary, states in part:

Wesley seems to agree:

Gill:

Do we have this perfect knowledge at this time simply because we have 66 books in various translations ?

I disagree.

Look around the Baptist Board alone, and see the various doctrines that abound. So varied that we have to have a forum that says 'Other Christian denominations'.

The conditions obtaining during Paul's time still exist today, that is, believers puffed up in what little knowledge they have, despite us having 66 books, and a dime a dozen Masters and Doctors of Theology.

"One thinks he may eat this meat, the other not", and so, the rule is still 'charity', as the apostle says.

 

quote by DHK
-------------------------------------------------
Secondly "the perfect" cannot refer to Jesus Christ, for the Greek "to telion" is in the neuter gender, while Christ is a man. It must therefore refer to the Word of God, as it is also in the context of God's revelation. At any rate the very gender of the words in question discounts the idea of it referring to Christ.
DHK
-------------------------------------------------

what about the word LOVE? Is it neuter gender? JohnV brought this up on page 1 and perfect/complete love makes alot of since. Concidering that Love is the theme of the bible.