Bible not perfect

[Link]

DHK,

I've been wanting to respond for a while, but I have had some things going on out here in 'real life' so it's hard. To save time, I will reply to a point from memory without quoting.

You say that I ignore the context of I Corinthians 13 and that the context is about Revelation.

The irony here is that my interpretation FITS the context and yours doesn't.

Paul wrote For we know in part and we prophesy i part, but when that which is perfect is come, that which is part shall be done away. And, when I was a child I spoke as I child. I thought as a child. I understood as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

He says we shall know as we are known.

Does the Bible fit there? No. If you get the Bible, it doesn't necessarily make your knowledge complete. It doesn't make the experience of one before the canon is complete seem like childhood. Many people, even Christians have copies of the Bible, or even study them, and still don't understand many things. They don't know as they are known. Our knowledge is still incomplete, and we still see through a glass darkly.

If your consledge is complete now, why do you disagree with other brethren on points of doctrine? I am sure there are areas where you and other brethren, even from your own church background, have areas of disagreement over doctrine, even if they are minor. If you and a brother disagree over doctrine, either one or both of you is lacking in knowledge in some area.

When the Lord Jesus returns, then we will be changed. Our past life will seem like childhood compared to our resurrected state. We are sown in corruption. We are raised in power. It does not yet appear what we shall be. We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

History and common sense shows us that the having or even reading the Bible doesn't guarantee a better understanding of the Gospel, or more maturity, than the apostle Paul had during his earthly life here before his resurrection.

Paul writes of the perfect as though it were something that he would experience himself. He was in the grave when the scritures were completed. But he will bei the grave no longer at the resurrection.

You say the passage must be saying that 'the perfect' is revelation, since tongues and prophecy have to do with revelation. This is a narrow and misleading argument. What we need to do is look at the passage and learn what Paul is talking about. Paul is talking about something that will perfectly replace tongeus, prophecy- something that will make his then-present udnerstanding seem childish. Something that will cause him to see and understand clearly. If scripture guaranteed perfect and complete understanding, why do people have questions about it, and still have to learn? If we had complete understanding, we would not have to study the Bible to learn, because we would know all we needed to know. The Bible is a written record of the knowledge the apostle Paul and other apostles had in the first century. It is not 'the perfect' that puts an end to partial understanding and causes us to know as we are known.

I have a question for you. Do you know the Lord like He knows you?

 

[DHK]

1Cor.13:12 taken from the Bible Commentary, by William MacDonald:

As long as we are on this earth, we see things dimly and indistinctly, as if we were looking in a blurry mirror. Heaven, by contrast, will be like see in things face to face, i.e., without anything between to obscure the vision. Now our knowledge is partial, but then we shall know just as we also are known—which means more fully. We will never have perfect knowledge, even in heaven. Only God is omniscient. But our knowledge will be vastly greater than it is now.

But when that which is perfect has come, i.e., when the Canon is completed by the last book's being added to the NT, then periodic or piecemeal revelations of the divine truth will be stopped, and the telling forth of this truth will be done away. There will be no more need of partial revelations since the complete word of God will be here.
The sign gifts were connected with the childhood of the church. The gifts were not childish; they were necessary gifts of the Holy Spirit. But once the full revelation of God was available in the Bible, the miracle gifts were no longer needed and were put aside. The word "child" here means a baby without the full power of speech.
Now (during the Apostolic age) we see in a mirror, dimly. No single one of us (Apostles) has received God's full revelation. It is being given to us in portions, like parts of a puzzle. When the Canon of Scripture is completed, the obscurity will be removed and we will see the picture in its entirety. Our knowledge (as apostles and prophets) is partial at present. But when the last book has been added to the NT, we will know more fully and intimately than ever before.

 

[Link]

DHK
Your commentator should take note of the fact that Paul says 'When ____I___ was a child..." He speaks of himself. He doesn't say the whole church was a child. Paul, as an apostle, wasn't alive when Revelation was written, to see the 'pieces of the puzzle' come together. Netiehr were the 12 except for John, according to historical traditions. So this interpretation is forced at best.

 

[Link]

I got a reply from a Greek professor about the idea that 'the perfect' must refer to some neuter word. His writing is so technical and in depth, it's hard for someone who doesn't know Greek to understand, but I'll pass on the relevant portion of his reply below. Suffice it to say, he doesn't agree with your assertion, and presents counter examples from the scriptures:

*****
It would seem to me that, since it can be deteremined from the verbal setting of to teleiov = to teleion that what it refers to now belongs to us in as being partial, or incomplete, that could probably settle the matter. If we pay carfeful attention to exactly what we now have only in incompleteness, then would we not know at least some of what the completeness implies? If we have partial knowledge, partial understanding, or 'vision', and reasoning, then would not the expression in doubt refer to the complete supplying of all these?

Because 'good' e.g. aga0oc = agathos e.g. kaloc = calos and 'bad' e..g. novhpoc = poneros e.g. kakoc = cacos occur frequently, they can provide several valid examples. My generalizations will not treat of all possibilities, but only a few related to the citation.

A Greek adjective in neuter singular form with a neuter article may refer to something already mentioned, which may often be neuter, but need not be. See e.g. Romans 07,12-23.

I wonder if your friend would say regarding Romans 13,03-04 that the corresponding form of epgov = ergon 'work' has to be supplied every time to aga0ov = to agathon in any case occurs there.

Without a specified item to refer back to, it may either convey the concept of an abstraction or refer to any items that would have the abstract quality. This is what constitutes the amphiboly in Matthew 06,13. Tou novhpou = tu poneru could be the genitive form either of the masculine o novhpoc = ho poneros 'wicked one' or of the neuter to novhpov = to poneron 'evil' 'wickedness', which might imply deliverance also from action that might be wicked. Cf. 05,37 and 39.


'Your good' in Romans 14,16 does not have to be understood only of bpwma = broma 'food', but may refer to any item that has goodness.

The 'jury is out' on the question of 'the acts' or the 'quality that characterizes them':
Romans 12,21 15,02 and 16,19 Galatians 06,10 Ephesians 04,28 3rd John 11 Romans 07,18 1st Thessalonians 05,21 Galatians 06,09 For the anarthrous compare 1st Thessalonians 05,15 Hebrews 05,14 James 04,17.

But can e.g. to aga0ov = to agathon or to kalov = to kalon or to xphctov = to chreston mean 'goodness' itself, the abstraction? We come close to a blending, or shading off, of the more concrete into the abstract in Philemon 14. To kakov = to cacon in 1st Corinthians 13,05 (of all places!) seems to move more into the realm of abstraction, at least from our English standpoint, because of the verb 'thinketh'. Maybe it would help your friend clean up his Greek syntax, if you'd get him to point out any referent, or antecedent, to which this points back.

But a very telling punchline on syntax might be felt by anyone who could compare the to xphctov = to chreston and the thc xphctothtoc = tes chrestotetos in Romans 02,04:
"Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness ((thc xphctothtoc = tes chrestotetos, genitive form of h xphctothc = he chrestotes)) and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness ((to xphctov = to chreston)) of God leadeth thee to repentance?"

The writer does not ride two different horses through this stream of thought. The situation in the wording shows that both can be translated into English as abstract nouns, the variation in form being simply stylistic. It would have had the same meaning had he written either:

"Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness ((thc xphctothtoc = tes chrestotetos)) and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness ((h xphctothc = he chrestotes)) of God leadeth thee to repentance?"
or:
"Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness ((tou xphctou = tu chrestu)) and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness ((to xphctov = to chreston)) of God leadeth thee to repentance?"

By the time I had finished my reading for my doctoral finals (the reading list having contained 10,000 Teubner text pages in Greek standard classical authors and, for me, much Greco-roman law of the early Byzantine period) I had probably noticed hundreds of places where neuter adjectivals with an article might be well translated with an English abstract noun.

cheers and may you enjoy the fruit of the light and bye for now,
Bill Thurman = BillHazZaqen 'Bill, the senior citizen', scil. 'the aged'
**********

Btw, some of the punctuation was changed so as not to violate the anti-html parameters of this web board.

 

[frewtloop]

I don't really think God intended His Word to be this complicated, or else how could it "make wise the simple?"

TheWorm

 

[tamborine lady]

The Worm said:

I don't really think God intended His Word to be this complicated, or else how could it "make wise the simple?"

Tam says,

It isn't that complicated. Some people want it to be, but it isn't. The following scripture says so.

Isa 35-8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

Working for Jesus,

Tam