Defining "Perfect"

Thanks Phillip. RE:Testing the spirits: that would be John in the books of John and 1 John:

The content of the test:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

HankD

 

In summary...I believe God caused every valid BV in every language to be perfect for its target readership. Just because Shaq and I cannot wear each other's apparel, that doesn't mean his apparel isn't perfect for him and mine for me.

 

Jas 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

I don't think we should compare the bible to a pair of gym shorts. If the bible is a gift from God to the church, then it was given by God, and not by our own hand. How can we pick and choose what God gives us? Just because we have many bible versions today and some people have developed preferences does not mean that God has not given us a bible that He would have us to trust as His word. Should we take the quantity of available bible versions as evidence that God is impartial toward His written word?

 

Here is a comment from 1611:

HankD

 

One small problem with your reasoning, James. Each and every bible, be it KJV or NIV or a Greek fragment, comes from the hand of man.

God inspired the original authors of Scripture, so I figure what they wrote themselves while under inspiration is to be considered actually "inspired". But, once you take that first step, that first copy, you have broken that chain.

The bible was given to us by God. Each and every translation of the copies of the manuscripts has been given to us by man.

Exactly right, James. But that does not make the KJV uniquely qualified to be considered as the only one.

The problem here comes from the use of "a". As in, "...given us a bible that..." When you attempt to foist that one little letter into this arguement, you step outside the bounds of rational discussion.

God did not promise "a" bible, but to preserve His word. Seems to me that you are trying to take a pretty long leap to justify your personal preference.

Do you think that you, or anyone else, is qualified to be the judge of that? Without partiality?

Most here would agree that not everything that has "Bible" splattered on the cover could be considered one. But just because it doesn't have "King James Authorized" splattered on it doesn't mean that it is not the word of God.

Hmmm...I wonder what Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the other Apostles would say about all this hoopla because a few want to force their personal preference over on everyone else as the one and only choice...Oh, wait, King James has already beaten them to it...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Because the writers of scripture were uniquely qualified to receive inspiration. The Prophets, Apostles, and holy men of the OT were divinely authorized...

To prove that any translation is word-for-word perfect in the same sense the originals were you must prove that the translators received direct revelation from God to govern their word choices.

Further, the qualifications for being an Apostle included seeing the risen Christ and being specifically called to that office. No one since the death of John has qualified.

 

Andy...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.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. He didn't protect words as they did it. He breathed through them His Word. The weren't taking dictation with pens... they were the pens.

He is perfect. We are not.

God also created man and all of nature perfect in every fashion. Man's sin corrupted that perfection but we can still accurately say that we are created in the image of God and that creation reflects God so accurately that "they are without excuse" even if someone has never heard a presentation of the gospel.

It was man's weakness and fallibility that caused errors to creep into the copying/translating processes. However these copies and translations still accurately reflect the originals so that they can rightly be called the Word of God. They maintain the perfect (complete) image (revelation/message/saying) without the perfect wording.

Why did God let Adam fail? Why shouldn't we likewise believe that God should give us perfect men in every generation to act as our example?

You said a mouth full there.

I have been engaged in this debate for several years and have yet to see a single solid proof for KJVOnlyism from scripture or historical fact. When you boil it all down, KJVO's want to have the final say on what IS and ISN't TRUTH, ie. The Bible. But not because they can prove it but rather because it is what they believe and any belief other than theirs is just, well... wrong.

Now all you have to do is prove that the KJV translators were such men... and the subsequent revisors... and while you are at it you probably should prove that Erasmus was such an instrument as well. But remember that these folks must be biblically qualified for such use.

How about this... God uses imperfect men and their imperfect words/copies/translations to communicate His perfect (complete) Word? Why would it be more difficult for you to believe that the imperfect word choices of imperfect men are more difficult for God to use than the men themselves?

 

Here is a comment from 1611:

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't realize that you believed the KJV translators were inspired. Can you back this up with scripture? I don't ever recall anyone putting forth the argument that the KJV translators supposed they were producing a perfect bible, or that their opinion on the matter was either here or there on the issue.

 

Does anyone have anything to say that pertains to the OP? Or is this just the part where we all deny the KJV is perfect and clap ourselves on the back? I suggested a definition of what a perfect bible might be, all I get back is 'prove the translators were inspired'. What is the big deal with God using men to produce a perfect bible? When I say perfect, what do I mean? If you say a perfect bible must be 'word for word perfect in the sense of the originals' then I would ask you to show me the originals so we can compare. If we can accept that God is the sole arbiter of the matter and allow for His ways to be higher than our ways, we might come to the conclusion that we could never know perfection unless it were revealed to us. The testimony of the scriptures about our Lord might agree:

Isa 53
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

If you were going to search for a revelation about the word of God, it would have to be in the word of God, wouldn't it? Regardless of what tradition said, or modern scholarship taught, or how many great men of God said there was no such thing as a perfect bible, would not the testimony of the scriptures be the only thing that truly mattered?

 

The "big deal" is that if everyone bows down to the KJVO and chants, "Oh, yes, thou art right, thine Authorized Version is but the one and only true word of God," all that has been accomplished is the concedeing to a minority sect of off-the-wall kooks (as nice as I can put it).

Can God produce a perfect bible? Absolutely.

Has God produced a perfect bible? Yes, in the originals.

Do we have a perfect bible today? No, we do not.

Neither you, not any other man on the face of the earth has the authority to make that call. And if anyone did, the KJV would definately be put out of the running with all of its revisions/editions/corrections.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Jas 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

James Newman:I don't think we should compare the bible to a pair of gym shorts. If the bible is a gift from God to the church, then it was given by God, and not by our own hand. How can we pick and choose what God gives us? Just because we have many bible versions today and some people have developed preferences does not mean that God has not given us a bible that He would have us to trust as His word. Should we take the quantity of available bible versions as evidence that God is impartial toward His written word?

Mr, Newman, do you agree that God has allowed/caused His word to be translated into over 2400 languages today for the purpose of making it understandable in the languages God has caused/allowed certain nations, tribes, etc. to use? Same with English. God caused/allowed many versions to be made in the "old days"; why should He quit now?

Whether it seems logical or even correct to us, the evidence is plain about how God has chosen to provide His word in English to us. After all, it's HIS word, and we English speakers are the target readership for the English BVs.

 

fact: The KJV is a translation.

The very word 'translation' by definition indicates its need of a source or sources from which to be translated. Of what is it a translation? A translation cannot be a translation of nothing. A translation that is not direct revelation from God is not independent and underived since that translation depends on the underlying texts from which it was translated.

Is it scriptural to imply that a translation by men that were not directly inspired by God to be the ultimate authority beyond which there is not other and a greater authority than the underlying texts from which it was translated?
Is there any need for anything additional to perfect that which was already perfect before its translation into English and before 1611?

 

Come on guys, is there seriously not one lick of scripture that you even think would support the idea that God has decided to preserve His word in such a manner as you ascribe to Him? Perfect in the originals is a doctrinal statement. Where do you put your faith? In the doctrinal statement? Why do you guys believe the bible in the first place, if it has nothing relevant to say?

 

In God.

HankD

 

James Newman:Come on guys, is there seriously not one lick of scripture that you even think would support the idea that God has decided to preserve His word in such a manner as you ascribe to Him?

This is the question which we've been asking KJVOs for YEARS...with no truthful answer from them. If you're a KJVO, you might try to answer it instead of asking it again.

MY answer: It's not a matter of ascribing anything to God; the proof is right before us in the form of the various English BVs made over the last 600-plus years.


Perfect in the originals is a doctrinal statement. Where do you put your faith? In the doctrinal statement? Why do you guys believe the bible in the first place, if it has nothing relevant to say?

Can GOD not cause His word to appear AS HE CHOOSES? Where is He limited to one version in one language? Yes, He coulda had His prophets write in English, but then there'd have been over 1000 years in which NNE woulda had His word in understandable form. GOD GIVES US HIS WORD BECAUSE HE WANTS US TO READ IT OR AT LEAST HEAR IT! Therefore, each version that He allows/causes to be made is perfect for its target readership.

God calls men to be pastors and preachers; no two of them preach exactly alike. What's to stop Him from calling men to make a translation of His word that may be a little different from someone else's work in the same language?

 

No more revelation and inspired Scripture have been given since the giving of the book of Revelation to the Apostle John (Rev. 22:18). The writing of the Scriptures was finished with the completion of the New Testament (Rev. 22:18, Rom. 15:4, John 20:31). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:26). After the New Testament was completed, there was no further need for the gift of apostles and prophets (Rev. 22:18, 1 Cor. 13:10, Eph. 2:20).

Scriptural inspiration took place "in old time" when the prophets spake and wrote what was
directly revealed to them (2 Pet. 1:20-21) and not in 1611. God revealed His word to the apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4) and not to Church of England scholars in 1611. Church of England scholars in 1611 do not act as mediators and expert interpreters that stand between the believer and God (1 Tim. 2:5, John 16:13, 1 John 2:27, Heb. 4:16). Seeming to make the KJV translators into some kind of special, unique, exclusive priesthood who alone could understand and translate the Scriptures perfectly conflicts with the scriptural doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

"The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24). "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16). Likewise, a translation is not greater in authority than the source or sources from which it was translated and from which it derives its authority. Which is greater: a translation that is not directly inspired or the preserved words of the prophets and apostles in the original languages that were given by direct inspiration from God? How can a branch [any translation] on the KJV-only view's tree of good Bibles have "greater" authority than the vine or the tree from which it was translated [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)?

A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611 and would be true for believers who speak all languages (not just those who speak English).
The KJV-only view does not measure up.

 

Let me stir the pot some more, if I may........

Question: If we (as individuals), read as an example John 1:1 in Greek, and note it says.....Kai Theos an Ho Logos (and God was the word); but in order to render this into proper English write (or even think in our minds)"and the Word was God", have we not then become de facto translators of this verse?
If so, what rules would apply to our individual study?
Is God directing us to place this verse into a correct English sentence, or are we presuming to do this on our own accord?
Did the original writer mean God was the Word? (if so, is He still the word? When did He stop being the word?).
What dynamic should we use to translate this one verse if the Holy Spirit is discounted?
And if God doesn't keep His own word to us, what have we then?

Just some food for thought.
In Christ, John.

 

Not unless you include the fact that NT quotations of the OT in the KJV are almost never word for word.

There is also no scripture whatsoever to support the idea that God preserved the Bible in the way you prescribe- specifically in the KJV and no other current English translation.

Absent direct scripture, we must use biblical principles for proving what is true. The reason KJVOnlyism has so many failures in its attempted proofs is that it follows neither scriptural principles or logic.

This doctrinal statement is derived directly from the Bible itself. Many here have explained that in this very thread- some in response to Johnv I think.

Who said that? It has plenty relevant to say... it simply doesn't say what you apparently want it to.

 

Logos...the truth in what you've said will be quickly supported by a MULTILINGUAL Christian.

 

At least I know you’re not charismatic When was the bible completed? Was it when the last book was penned? Was it when they were compiled into one collection? When the canon was finalized? At what point did God finally remove His hand from His holy scriptures and set it adrift?

Would it not require God's providence to keep His words from becoming lost alltogether? I hear it said that we can get some 98.3% accuracy through the philosophy of textual criticism, and that is called preservation. But God producing a 100% accurate bible is inspiration. Would not the same action of God be required in either case?

Suppose that the KJV translators flipped a coin everytime they were unsure of a word.
Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
Could God cause the coin to land on the right side every time and cause them to choose the correct words? Would this mean they were inspired? When the Spirit causes you to do something through His leading, does that make you inspired? This is really just an imagined argument.

Once again, why is it preservation when everyone translates a bible, but it is inspiration if God guides one group of translators? It has nothing to do with the KJV translators being unique special translators, although I think the argument could be made that we do not see the level of scholarship that they had these days. But rather it is our unique and special God who is able to use any means to accomplish His will.

Mt 10:25
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

All these arguments presuppose God did not provide a perfect bible for us. I don't subscribe to the idea that there was a perfect chain of manuscripts handed down from father to son until the KJV translators got hold of it and then translated the perfect english bible from it. The translation may not be greater than the original, but it can be as the original. You keep saying God is limited by man and that the bible could not be reconstructed perfectly through God's providence.

I'll get back to this later guys, and try to show a better argument from scripture. As for the definition of perfect...