That Which Is Perfect

No he didn't. If that was true, he died without the Gospel.

God Bless

 

DHK:

Charity is the subject__ beginning, throughout, and the conclusion of the chapter, and what happens then and now. Nothing about the Bible.

When do you believe this perfect bible came? What year? Why do we still have faith and hope then if that which is perfect has already come? Did knowledge disappear also?

God Bless

 

No he didn't. If that was true, he died without the Gospel.

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]Paul wrote about the gospel (1Cor.15:3,4)

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Paul defines for us what the gospel is in the above verses.

If your speaking of the "Gospels," most of them were written after this epistle. John wasn't written until after 90 A.D. Your statement doesn't make sense. They did not have the written New Testament at the time of Paul's writing.
DHK

 

DHK, says:

This makes no sense. How was St. Paul preaching the gospel without this perfect knowledge that you say will come only with the Bible?


God Bless

 

Charity is the subject__ beginning, throughout, and the conclusion of the chapter, and what happens then and now. Nothing about the Bible.

When do you believe this perfect bible came? What year? Why do we still have faith and hope then if that which is perfect has already come? Did knowledge disappear also?

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]It seems apparent that either you haven't been reading my posts, or are yet without understanding. The wider context (chapters 12 to 14) is speaking entirely about spiritual gifts--chapter 13 included. 13:1-7 describe in detail what love is. However, in verses 8 to 13 Paul brings the subject back again to spiritual gifts in relation to the Bible.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Prophesies, tongues, revelatory knowledge were all unique gifts which had directly to do with the Bible. They were temporary gifts given to the church that they might receive the revelation that is in the not yet completed New Testament. They were now in the church age, and they, like we, needed the New Testament to guide them. That was God's way of giving them that knowledge in the first century until the Bible was complete. This entire context is the revelation of God.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
They did not have the New Testament.
"For we know in part." That is, they did have the Old Testament--part of the Bible--that is the part they did have. They knew in part. They had the Old Testament. That is how the Bereans could search out what Paul said (Acts 17:11) and verify a New Testament message with the Old Testament.
"And we prophesy in part" The gift of prophecy (as well as knowledge and tongues) were given to make up for the knowledge that they did not have that was given in the New Testament not yet completed. They knew in part (OT); and the prophesied in part (NT knowledge).

"But when that which is perfect is come; then that which is in part shall be done away.
When the perfect (Old English word for complete) Word or Bible is come; then that which is in part (tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge), shall be done away with.
The context of this entire section is the Bible, the revelation of God's Word. This cannot be denied. The spiritual gifts and all speak to the revelation of God's Word--the Bible. Now the Bible is complete, perfect.
DHK

 

This makes no sense. How was St. Paul preaching the gospel without this perfect knowledge that you say will come only with the Bible?
</font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps you are too tired to think clearly.
Tell me, when Jesus gave the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20) to the disciples, how much of the New Testament had been written?

I also said that the knowledge that they needed to make up for what lacked in the completed New Testament was given to them miraculously in the spiritual gifts of prophesies, tongues, and revelatory knowledge. That is why those gifts existed--because the perfect Word of God had not come yet.
DHK

 

This makes no sense. How was St. Paul preaching the gospel without this perfect knowledge that you say will come only with the Bible?
</font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps you are too tired to think clearly.
Tell me, when Jesus gave the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20) to the disciples, how much of the New Testament had been written?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]The Word of God is not limited to ink on paper...

 

I am glad someone realizes this.
DHK

 

Are you saying that The Lord Jesus Christ is the word of God. or that the bible is the word of God.

Ive always seen the bible as a book.
about the Lord.

1Jo 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

the "unction" doesnt come in a hardback version.

 

DHK:


1 Cor 13, the whole chapter, is talking about striving for the higher gifts:

1 Cor 13 1-3 It is love alone that counts. Even the gift of prophecy or tongues etc. without love is nothing.

1 Cor 13:4-7 It is love alone that triumphs.

1 Cor 13:8-13 It is love alone that endures

1 Cor 13:13 For now faith, hope, and love abide.

If you are going to say that that which is perfect is the Bible, than we are talking about the the written word in the book. When did that which is perfect come? Do you have a date? Did that which is perfect stay perfect? Does it matter what language it is in? Which Bible? How does this relate to faith, hope, and especially love in this chapter?

God Bless

[ July 29, 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

DHK:

The last verse of chapter 12 gives the subject of chapter 13. It is about desiring the greater gifts of faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these gifts is love.

If you are going to say that that which is perfect is the Bible, then we are talking about the the written word in the book. When did that which is perfect come? Do you have a date? Did that which is perfect stay perfect? Does it matter what language it is in? Which Bible? How does this relate to faith, hope, and especially love in this chapter?

God Bless

 

That which is perfect came in 98 A.D. when John completed the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, which was also the last book, chronologically to be written. The Old English word "perfect" as in Greek, means complete. At that time the Bible was complete. It was written in Greek, and yes that matters, because only the original manuscripts were inspired. "Holy men of old wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
It is not the translation that is inspired; it is the original manuscript in its original language: Greek in the New Testament, and primarily Hebrew in the Old Testament.

How does it relate to faith and hope? It doesn't. Faith and hope are two semi-permanent gifts contrasted to love, a permanent gift. These gifts are set in contrast with the temporary gifts of verse 8--prophesies, tongues, revelatory knowledge, which verses 8-13 are talking about. Thus verse 13 becomes a fitting conclusion to this passage. Chapter 14 continues the subject of Spiritual gifts. Remember that there were no chapter breaks in the original languages.
DHK

 

DHK:

Your answer is shocking to me. At least you admit your version of “when that which is perfect comes” has nothing to do with the two semi-permanent gifts contrasted to love, a permanent gift.

So, “when that which is perfect comes” is not the Bible according to you. And we do not have the inspired Word of God? You say no translation is inspired. I did not know Baptists believed this. That is sad.

It is strange that at 98 A.D. “when that which is perfect came” they had many many writings and had not decided what was inspired and what was not. They were not put together into the canon we know for a couple of hundred years at Church councils. Of course you would say these were not the original but a translation, and not the inspired Word of God.

Catholics hold our Sacred Scriptures as the inspired Word of God:

135. "'The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God' [DV 24.]."

I can not buy your interpretation because St. Paul clearly said, “when that which is perfect comes, he would know as he is known”. This was not true if “when that which is perfect comes” was the completion of the last book.

St Paul has no more need for faith and hope because he sees clearly the object of his faith and hope face to face. Love endures forever, all the other gifts fall away.

So we will probably have to agree to disagree here.

God Bless

 

Did I say that? No. "When that which is perfect (the Bible) is come, then that which is in part (temporary sign gifts) shall be done away. That is what I said. The perfect inspired Word of God was completed by the end of the first century without the help of the Catholic Church. That is just your Catholic bias of history creeping in. God is not bound by the Catholic Church. Please learn a lesson. God is not a puppet of the Catholic Church. That sounds like Benny Hinn theology (maybe that's where Hinn got it from). God is not a puppet that you put in your pocket and pull out every time you want something, and then you just command him what to do--something like the genie in Aladdin's lamp. God is not inextricalbly tied throughout history to the Catholic Church--never was.

Who is "they?" And how do you know? Did you interview this group called "they?" Or is this just a Catholic assumption? Give the Apostles and early Christians (those taught by the Apostles) some credit. They weren't exactly dummies were they. Most of them knew at least four languages fluently. How many do you know?

You are mistaken on both accounts. They were put together shortly after the first century when the Book of Revelation was complete. Now pay attention to this; it is important. God used the Apostles to write the inspired words of God. It is those words that are inspired--the words that the Apostles themselves wrote down. When God wrote the Ten Commandments with his own finger that is what was inspired. Later when he told Mosss to write the same thing in the Book of Exodus, that is what was inspired. There have been many copies since then, and many translations. I believe that God preserves His Word. But preservation and inspiration are two different things. Only the originals are inspired. Here is what God says:

2Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 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 prophecy (Word of God) came as holy men of God spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
It was the Holy Spirit that told them what to write. What they wrote was inspired by God.

2Tim.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 given by inspiration. All--every word; every part of the Bible is inspired.

I could never agree to such a belief. Your catechism says that the Scriptures simply contain the Word of God. I believe that the Scriptures ARE the Word of God. There is a big difference. I would never demean the Scriptures by simply saying they contain the Word of God, thereby implying that there are parts of the Bible that are not the Word of God.

And why shouldn't it be. Paul could not predict the future. Christ did not come in his time. He was not fully known before his death no matter what way you interpret that passage. The Bible (completed Bible) tells it like it is. Like James says, it is a mirror reflecting back in a more complete way my image of who I am. Read James 1.

Paul never suggested that he had no more need of faith and hope. He said that the greatest of these three was love. He didn't say that he didn't need the other two. He was just pointing out that love was a greater gift.
DHK

 

DHK, you say:

How is the bible you have the inspired word of God, if it is not the "original manuscript" in its "original language"?

God Bless

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls exonerate the HONEST
translations we presently have. There are
exceptions----THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION being
one of the worst.

 

I guess you didn't read the whole sentence from the Catechism.

Here it is again:
135. "'The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God' [DV 24.]."

The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God. Therefore there is nothing in there that is not inspired and not the word of God. You tell me only the original manuscripts in the original language are inspired. Big difference.

God Bless

 

How is the bible you have the inspired word of God, if it is not the "original manuscript" in its "original language"?
God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]I have no problem in standing in front of my congregation, Bible in hand, and saying to them: "This is the Word of God," for it is.

But we need to recognize some very important things when it comes to inspiration. God only inspired the original manuscripts. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." That is what the Bible says and that is what I believe. Peter, Paul, John and about 40 others over a period of 1500 wrote 66 books all of which contain the very words of God, which God inspired them to write. It was those manuscripts which were inspired. It was those Holy men of God that wrote the Scriptures. It was those Scriptures that were perfect, infallible, without error. That is the effect and part of the meaning of inspiration. If it is inspired (literally, God-breathed) then it will have no mistakes what so ever-no printer errors, copyist errors, translational errors, no erroors at all. If it inspired it will be absolutely perfect because God makes no mistakes.

Every translation known to mankind has errors and mistakes in it, which automatically disqualifies it from being inspired, infallible. Acts 12:4 translates "pascha" a word that every other time in the Bible is translated "passover," is here translated "Easter". That is an error in translations. In every translation some meaning is lost. When you go from one language to another it is inevitable that a perfect translation cannot be made because our languages are different. The translators job is always to translate literally, never interpretatively. To find the sense of the meaning is your job, the readers' duty. That is why we are to search the Scriptures. A paraphrase is simply one man's opinion about what the Bible says. It is not a translation at all.
If you look in Rom.6:1 you find the phrase "God forbid." Not one of those words, "God" or "forbid" is found in the Greek from which it is translated. Is it therefore inspired? Of course not. The literal translation is "May it not be." But the KJV translators used dynamic equivalency, that is, they inserted an English phrase to give the same sense as the Greek would have. They interpreted it rather than translated it. That is wrong. It is up to the reader to find out what the words, the phrase means. No translation is inspired. They all have mistakes--some more than others. Having said that about the KJV, I believe it is still the most accurate of all the translations.

The modern translations leave out entire verses if not whole sections of the Bible. Look in the ASV, NASB, NIV, etc., for Acts 8:38 or 1John 5:7. Compare to the KJV. See what you find.
A translation is not inspired. It is not infallible. The question you must ask yourself is this. Did God preserve his Word? Yes, I believe that we have the preserved Word of God. Preservation is different than inspiration.
DHK

 

DHK:

Many of the translations leave out seven books from the Old Testament in order to abide by the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. This same Jewish council put anathemas on the Jewish Christians who were using these books that pointed toward Christ. Read from the Jewish Encyclopedia and see what they were doing at that council besides rejecting the Greek Septuagint as the Bible of the Christians.

Many translations change the word of God so that it is no longer really the word of God in many places. God left an authority that would protect and preserve his word. That authority has the keys of the kingdom of heaven on earth.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."Matthew 16:19

The church used councils to determine such things.

You can't have the inspired word of God if your translations are not the inspired word of God. That is why Jesus left his authority.

That is part of the confusion among Protestants. Everyone thinks they have the whole word of God and it means what they think it means. Just look at the confusion and disagreement over the End Times. Most are reading the same Bible too. Now go ahead and tell me why your version is the correct one.

God Bless