T
Timothy
Guest
:-X
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
No.
S
standingtall
Guest
No need to shout at us Timmeh!
...or a stronger dosage if you need it:
...or a stronger dosage if you need it:
S
standingtall
Guest
OK, then. One or two of these will calm you down...Timothy said:
It is perfect in that it is perfectly what God intended... but I don't believe He ever intended it to be what you're asking for, an "easy button".
But it's perfectly able to do what God needs it to do, and be what Good needs it to be, as in:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
I believe that. But in that verse, "perfect" is not a particularly good translation in modern English, due to linguistic drift: In that verse, the intended sense of "perfect" is "mature" rather than "without flaw". "Perfect" is one of those words that conveys something different to us today than it did to readers in King James' time. Just another case in which the KJV's archaic language is misleading to modern readers.
The Bible is perfectly God's message to us, but it was never intended to give us God's exact words in English so we don't have to think about what He means, and can simply read it and apply it. If it did that, it would be imperfect, because that isn't what we need, however much you might feel you need that. He needs us to think about it, and think deeply.
As C.S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity, riffing on an old English proverb:
It is not a case of "Be good, sweet maid, and let who can be clever", but of "Be good, sweet maid, and never forget that involves being as clever as you can".
But it's perfectly able to do what God needs it to do, and be what Good needs it to be, as in:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
I believe that. But in that verse, "perfect" is not a particularly good translation in modern English, due to linguistic drift: In that verse, the intended sense of "perfect" is "mature" rather than "without flaw". "Perfect" is one of those words that conveys something different to us today than it did to readers in King James' time. Just another case in which the KJV's archaic language is misleading to modern readers.
The Bible is perfectly God's message to us, but it was never intended to give us God's exact words in English so we don't have to think about what He means, and can simply read it and apply it. If it did that, it would be imperfect, because that isn't what we need, however much you might feel you need that. He needs us to think about it, and think deeply.
As C.S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity, riffing on an old English proverb:
It is not a case of "Be good, sweet maid, and let who can be clever", but of "Be good, sweet maid, and never forget that involves being as clever as you can".
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
OZZY said:
Is God flawed? No.
Is his written word as it exists today flawed? Yes. There is no such thing as a perfect Bible. Even some of the original Greek texts contain grammatical errors (John, apparently, was a particularly bad writer). Scholarly, Godly men put it together, and scholarly Godly men still disagree about what should be included and how text should be interpreted and translated. KJVOs notwithstanding (and their opinions are absurd and mean nothing), there's no way to reconcile some differences between translations, and since there ARE differences, they can not all be perfect at every point.
I do agree, however, with what Izdaari said. It is perfect in that it is perfectly what God intended...
Castor Muscular said:
Your comment on John reminds me of what Nietzsche, a Latin and Greek scholar as well as philosopher, said after reading Revelation: "How could God know so little Greek?"
Even given perfect manuscripts, there is no such thing as a perfect translation. It involves judgement calls and guesswork, and finding the closest equivalent for words, phrases and idioms with no exact equivalent. God Himself could not do a perfect translation unless He used His power to imbed a miracle into the words, so the reader would miraculously grasp the exact meanings and nuances of the original. But of course, that wouldn't be merely a translation, but a miracle on paper. Short of that, God's own translation would have to be imperfect, because perfect translations are impossible, though it would no doubt be the best that ever would or could be done.
B
Bob
Guest
Timmy.
Define Bible. Do you mean a translation? Do you mean the originals?
Define Perfect?
Define Bible. Do you mean a translation? Do you mean the originals?
Define Perfect?
Perfect, 100% without error has always been attributed to the original writings.
All Bibles are Pure. The word "pure" as used by the biblical writers, about Scripture, speaks to its purifying effects on the lives of believers.
All Bibles are Pure. The word "pure" as used by the biblical writers, about Scripture, speaks to its purifying effects on the lives of believers.
Timothy said:
He provided a pure word. Why do you deny that?
Why are you hung up on having a perfect, variant-free Bible? That is a man-made belief system.
King David had imperfect copies of the Hebrew. His love for God's word was not subject to a variant-free Bible. His love for the word was based on its purifying effects.
Show us where the apostles quibbled over different versions and then your argument will have biblical backing.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,409
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
So, like basically everything else God created for us, it falls apart because of sin? It is a shame God can't provide for you and I a perfect word to read.
Yeah, poor God. People screw up his good work, then blame him for it.
Yeah, poor God. People screw up his good work, then blame him for it.
FSSL said:
Right. It seems that Jesus and his Apostles sometimes quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, and sometimes from the Septuagint (a Greek translation), without seeming to differentiate between them.
Timothy said:
The controversy is made up. In a struggle to convince people that the KJVO movement is biblical, they misuse Psalm 12. Read the entire Psalm and you will quickly see that God is preserving His people. EVEN the KJV translators have a marginal note to that effect. God's word has been preserved. We are told that from other passages (e.g., 1 Peter). However, we are never told that it would finally be preserved in a single English translation put together by Anglicans.
The KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB (etc) are the pure word of God. When you read the Bible, it has a purifying effect on you. THAT is what is meant by "pure." King David had a copy of a copy of a copy of Moses' writings YET he called them pure.
KJVOs speak of the "pure word of God," but they redefine it in a way that is never used in Scripture. You will notice that OZZY cannot accept the fact that all Bibles are pure. He has never studied the word in its biblical context.
T
The Real Bob
Guest
Timothy said:standingtall said:OK, then. One or two of these will calm you down...Timothy said:
Probably not. But, perhaps this could help ....
.... but, I don't touch that stuff anymore. :-\
Yeah. We can tell. (cough cough)
OZZY said:
Okay... which part of that definition carries the meaning David intended when he said "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." Psalm 119:140
Was David claiming the word of God was physically pure?
Was David claiming the word of God was chemically pure?
Was David claiming the word of God was ceremonially pure?
Or, was David claiming the word of God is morally pure?