Perfection Theology

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

5 hours ago, JimmyB said:

It is important that a word is translated so the correct meaning is retained.  

Job was not "perfect" in the modern sense.  In 1611, it meant "complete", which is why it is translated that way in modern translations.

All one has to do is to read the book of Job to realize that he was not perfect in the modern sense.  Only Jesus was perfect.

You simply look at the definition than you dont have to wrangle over words concerning every line posted.

I dont think I defined perfect according to anything modern, anyone can click on the numbers of any word given us and find it on an online lexicon.

 

[JimmyB]

1 minute ago, AFlameOfFire said:

You simply look at the definition than you dont have to wrangle over words concerning every line posted.

I dont think I defined perfect according to anything modern, anyone can click on the numbers of any word given us and find it on an online lexicon.

 

But the word means something different today than it did in 1611, so there is more than one definition of the same word.  That is the problem.

The trouble is that "perfect" meant "complete" in 1611; today it means "blameless".  Job, the man, was never "perfect" (without flaws) in the modern sense.  He clearly had his flaws.  He was, however, blameless in the way that he lived.

Why click on a word to determine its meaning? (BTW, that is a poor way of translating any 1611 word into today's English).)

The Bible should be clear in its meaning!  1611 Englyshe is easy to misinterpret and give the wrong meaning to God's word. 

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

33 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

But the word means something different today than it did in 1611, so there is more than one definition of the same word.  That is the problem.

The trouble is that "perfect" meant "complete" in 1611; today it means "blameless".  Job, the man, was never "perfect" (without flaws) in the modern sense.  He clearly had his flaws.  He was, however, blameless in the way that he lived.

Why click on a word to determine its meaning? (BTW, that is a poor way of translating any 1611 word into today's English).)

The Bible should be clear in its meaning!  1611 Englyshe is easy to misinterpret and give the wrong meaning to God's word. 

I dont really wrangle over every word in every verse, there are various words for perfect even. Just find out what each means there and thats what it means. I don't know what to tell you.

I'll let you define the details, how is that? I post the verse, you hightlight the word and provide the definition for each word in each verse posted, in this case the word perfect.

The second post I posted concerning three people who could possible save themselves in respects to their own righteousness and one of which is Daniel and I included where he was praying and confessing his sin. 

So I am not sure how I am over looking something because I havent defined it properly, since obviously he is confessing his sin .

Whether its be holy, be perfect, be blameless, etc people have access to online tools for finding out, especially if any of those words  including the few for perfect is of interest to them.

 

[JimmyB]

2 minutes ago, AFlameOfFire said:

I dont really wrangle over every word in every verse, there are various words for perfect even. Just find out what each means there and thats what it means. I don't know what to tell you.

I'll let you define the details, how is that? I post the verse, you hightlight the word and provide the definition for each word in each verse posted, in this case the word perfect.

The second post I posted concerning three people who could possible save themselves in respects to their own righteousness and one of which is Daniel and I included where he was praying and confessing his sin. 

So I am not sure how I am over looking something because I havent defined it properly, since obviously he is confessing his sin .

Whether its be holy, be perfect, be blameless, etc people have access to online tools for finding out, especially if any of those words  including the few for perfect is of interest to them.

 

I don't wrangle over every word in every verse either.  That is the main reason that I prefer modern translations.  They are clearly translated into the language that you and I and millions of others use every day.  Modern English does fall under that description, which is why it is so often misunderstood and misapplied.

I have no interest in the rest of your post.

 

[jesusandliberty]

6 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

on the other hand, this salvation will be worked out in our soul, throughout our lives.

Where can I find this referenced?

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

8 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I don't wrangle over every word in every verse either.  That is the main reason that I prefer modern translations.  They are clearly translated into the language that you and I and millions of others use every day.  Modern English does fall under that description, which is why it is so often misunderstood and misapplied.

I have no interest in the rest of your post.

 

Why are you angry with me? I just do not have a 1611, you do. So I will be feeling around in the dark over any back and forths between us on what this word perfect means over here and what this word perfect means over here, there are a few. And sifting through words is tedious. to do online between one another trying to figure out what is what in your version against what is in every other version.

And  you mentioned in your earlier post that the word perfect in your verson meant "complete" and in mine in 1 Cr 2:6 where it speaks of them who are perfect  (under that definition itself) it includes "completeness", or "brought to its end", "a man", "full age" so I don't see the "without flaws" as you suggest are there in that particular definition.  There is perfection in Hebrews 6:1 which includes a state of being more intelligent, and a moral or spiritual perfection. Perfection in Hebrews 6:1 which includes a completing.

You said that in your 1611 perfect in Job means blameless, I find blameless in the OT 3 times which basically means innocent or guiltless.

I don't see without flaws there, but how I regard it is the overall perfection which encompasses many things as far as completion goes seeing the scriptures are for our instruction in righteousness altogether so that the man of God be perfect 2 Ti 3:17 which also includes both "fitted" and "completeness" as far as perfect goes so again, mine is showing complete in various places where perfect is mentioned.

I do not see our modern word flaw in there which is likely why its not in there so there is no way for me to find it and understand how the scriptures use it.

We  have"without fault", to be "harmless" or free from guile. We have "without spot" "unblamable", without rebuke. I lost my place here and what I was looking at but there was another one I found which brought in perfection which actually spoke of integrity and uprightness. I mean they end up being pretty much a mish mash of some of the best things in a person. And there are so many, "be holy, be blameless, be without spot, be perfect, be harmless" etc. You really cant be one without having some form or attribute of it found in another. 

I apologize for fustrating you, or making you angry with me, I just find digging through these things on a board, hashing these type of things out to be on the tedious side of things and draining. I had been up 48 hours straight and did not have my heart or mind in tackling that task . So please accept my apology for making you angry at me.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by AFlameOfFire

[Big Boy Stan Murf]

18 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I prefer modern translations.

Beware that they contain a lot more error that the KJV and they add to scripture and and take away scripture.

The devil is having a field day muddying the waters of what the Lord said as this is how he operates from the start as we see in the garden of eden... always claiming God didn't say what He actually said and/or God didn't mean what He actually said.

[Vine Abider]

19 minutes ago, Stan Murff said:

Beware that they contain a lot more error that the KJV and they add to scripture and and take away scripture.

The devil is having a field day muddying the waters of what the Lord said as this is how he operates from the start as we see in the garden of eden... always claiming God didn't say what He actually said and/or God didn't mean what He actually said.

And @JimmyB that's why it's good to have a Greek interlinear handy, and also consult someplace like BibleHub.com which has numerous different translations to compare.

[JimmyB]

I couldn't find Stan Murff's post (shown in Vine Abider's post) that said...

"Beware that they contain a lot more error that the KJV and they add to scripture and and take away scripture.

The devil is having a field day muddying the waters of what the Lord said as this is how he operates from the start as we see in the garden of eden... always claiming God didn't say what He actually said and/or God didn't mean what He actually said."

Of course I disagree entirely.  Saying things like "they [modern translations] contain a lot more error that the KJV and they add to scripture and and take away scripture" is simply wrong.  There is no basis for a statement like that.  Translation is as much art as science, so translations will naturally differ.  The KJV has errors, and if a modern translation differs, that by no mean it is wrong. Translations do not "add to scripture and take away scripture" because they are scripture. The KJV added to scripture -- the "long ending" of Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the long version of Romans" have very poor evidence for being part of scripture, since they are not found in the earliest and best sources. 

And saying that "the devil is having a field day muddying the waters of what the Lord said as this is how he operates from the start as we see in the garden of eden... always claiming God didn't say what He actually said and/or God didn't mean what He actually said" has no basis.  He implies that the devil is motivating modern translators because their product differs from the KJV!

[JimmyB]

1 hour ago, Vine Abider said:

And @JimmyB that's why it's good to have a Greek interlinear handy, and also consult someplace like BibleHub.com which has numerous different translations to compare.

A Greek interlinear can be a useful reference, but it is no more reliable than having an anatomy textbook and claiming to be a doctor.  There is not one Greek source documents; there are many. And using an interlinear doesn't make one a qualified translation scholar.  As I have said many times before, source and destinations differ in many ways, including word meanings, verb tenses, idioms. etc.  The goal of any translation should be to communicate to our minds what the source documents communicated to the ancient peoples.  That is not an easy task.

Personally, I like biblegateway.com, but BibleHub is also excellent.  It is very helpful to have a good reference tool that shows the various translations and provides Scripture reference works.