Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Bible has no errors. It is perfect.

bible scripture church

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
124 replies to this topic

#41 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 01:18 AM

Andreas that is from the Septuagint. Why are you so against the word perfect is my question brother?

#42 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 March 2014 - 01:41 AM

It is from Brenton's translation, and Fr John Whiteford, like most Orthodox Christians, is not keen on it, preferring the HTM Psalter which has 'blameless'. But clearly neither Brenton nor any translation can be used, Aaron, by you to support your point since they are not God inspired.

 

Aaron, you used the word 'perfect' in relation to the Bible, and so you should explain to us why you selected that word and what you think it means in relation to Scripture bearing in mind that you have not said on what authority you chose the word.



#43 Salaam Yitbarek

Salaam Yitbarek

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 02:18 AM

Ah, but how can the Bible be perfect if it is NOT self-interpreting!  :P   :)    But that is exactly some of the arguments drawn up by some from the Reformed traditions who argue that the Bible is perfect and one of its attributes is that it is self-interpreting. 

Why not?! My definition of perfect does not include self-interpreting. It is perfect as interpreted by the Church. It is definitely NOT self-interpreting.



#44 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 March 2014 - 03:34 AM

Why not?! My definition of perfect does not include self-interpreting. It is perfect as interpreted by the Church. It is definitely NOT self-interpreting.

I am agreeing with you that the Scriptures are not self-interpreting, and that only through the lens and wisdom of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit can the truth of the Scriptures be reliably understood and known, but even then can we say that the Scriptures are perfect as interpreted by the Church? I ask this because I have read some commentaries by Church Fathers who interpret verses in completely different ways (not necessarily with dogmatic things, but with things nonetheless, for example, if the Last Supper was the Passover meal or if it was the meal in preparation of the Passover. Or with eschatological theologoumen of the highly symbolic Book of Revelation.) My point is that when we speak of perfection in ontological terms and in degrees worthy of the divine, wouldn't it be fair to say that only God alone can be spoken of being perfect? If so, then this confirms that Christ alone is the icon of perfection in the world and all other things, though they are perhaps ontologically in various degrees of perfection, do not measure up to the perfection which is in Christ alone.

Again, this harkens back to what Andreas wrote earlier with regards to what we mean by the word 'perfect', for often times semantics can be a great and unnecessary cause of disagreement. That is why I think we all here can agree that the Scriptures are inerrant in its message and teachings but disagree on whether this constitutes perfection worthy of the word now that Christ has come to reveal what perfection and truth is.

Edited by Antonios, 13 March 2014 - 03:39 AM.


#45 Salaam Yitbarek

Salaam Yitbarek

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 11:52 AM

Well, Antonios, I think I understand what you mean, and in my humble opinion, it is better not to get deep into semantics, as we end up defining things that shouldn't be defined. Which I think is part of the reluctance to call Holy Scriptures perfect. I mean, if we define perfect as a property of God which nothing else can have, then, yes, Holy Scriptures are not 'perfect', just 'inerrant'.

 

Nevertheless, since Aaron is using the word perfect in order to combat heretical (whimsical, too) interpretations of scripture, I suppose it is best to reassure him that we too are against such interpretations.

 

As for the Fathers' diverging interpretations, I would say that's it's not a fault of the text, but of the Fathers, who were not perfect, but whose synthesis is perfected in the Church.



#46 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 March 2014 - 12:49 PM

As already said, we should, to be safe, stick to patristic terminology which is tried and tested and will keep us safe from error. In relation to Scripture, let us use only those words the Fathers have used.



#47 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 01:50 PM

"Whenever a person even slightly illumined reads the Scriptures or sings psalms he finds in them matter for contemplation and theology, one text supporting another. But he whose intellect is still unenlightened thinks that the Holy Scriptures are contradictory. Yet there is no contradiction in the Holy Scriptures: God forbid that there should be. For some texts are confirmed by others, while some were written with reference to a particular time of a particular person. Thus every word of Scripture is beyond reproach. The appearance of contradiction is due to our ignorance. We ought not to find fault with the Scriptures, but to the limit of our capacity we should attend to them as they are, and not as we would like them to be, after the manner of the Greeks and Jews. for the Greeks and Jews refused to admit that they did not understand, but out of conceit and self-satisfaction they found fault with the Scriptures and with the natural order of things, and interpreted them as they saw fit and not according to the will of God. As a result they were led into delusion and gave themselves over to every kind of evil." -- St. Peter of Damascus

#48 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 March 2014 - 01:54 PM

Aaron, you posted this before and no one argues with it.



#49 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 06:41 PM

CHRYSOSTOM ON THE PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE

BY RAS ( [url="http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2013/03/chrysostom-on-the-perfection-of-scripture/"]http://www.orthodox-christianity


John Chrysostom, from HOMILY IX, 2 Timothy 3:16 , 17 .

“Having offered much exhortation and consolation from other sources, he adds that which is more perfect, derived from the Scriptures; and he is reasonably full in offering consolation, because he has a great and sad thing to say.

For if Elisha, ho was with his master to his last breath, when he saw him departing as it were in death, rent his garments for grief, what think you must this disciple suffer, so loving and so beloved, upon hearing that his master was about to die, and that he could not enjoy his company when he was near his death, which is above all things apt to be distressing? For we are less grateful for the past time, when we have been deprived of the more recent intercourse of those who are departed. For this reason when he had previously offered much consolation, he then discourses concerning his own death: and this in no ordinary way, but in words adapted to comfort him and fill him with joy; so as to have it considered as a sacrifice rather than a death; a migration, as in fact it was, and a removal to a better state. “For I am now ready to be offered up” (2 Tim. 4:6 ), he says.

For this reason he writes:

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”

All what Scripture? all that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said of what he was discoursing of; about which he said,

“and that from childhood you have known the holy Scriptures.” All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”;

therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is

“profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, in order that the person of God may perfect, equipped for every good work.”

“For doctrine.”

For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us.

“That the man of God may be perfect.”

For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them.

And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!”

Edited by Aaron R., 13 March 2014 - 06:47 PM.


#50 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 March 2014 - 07:35 PM

With regards to the author's title 'CHRYSOSTOM ON THE PERFECTION OF SCRIPTURE', I don't think what he quoted from St. John Chrysostom is actually saying that the Scriptures are perfect, but rather that they are indispensable in the student of the faith's growth in perfection

 

Aaron, I am afraid (IMO) that what you have posted in this thread so far has not proved your position that the Scriptures are perfect, but I do appreciate the quotes from the Fathers!  :)

 

PS:  If you wish to believe the Scriptures are perfect, then please do so.  I don't think this needs to be a point of argument or division, so long as you understand that the Scriptures are not above the Church which produced them or idolize the Scriptures as some modern Christians (particularly Protestants) do. 

 

The Scriptures were made for the Church, not the Church was made for the Scriptures.


Edited by Antonios, 13 March 2014 - 07:41 PM.


#51 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 March 2014 - 09:48 PM

I endorse what Antonios says. The use of the word 'perfect' in the headline of that article adds nothing, and we would need to see the original Greek to see what St John means by 'more perfect' -  it probably means 'more complete'. It must be understood that posters like me and Antonios are not (if I may presume to speak for him) seeking to lower the estimation in which the Church holds Scripture but to be careful in the use of terminology.

 

I am baffled as to why Aaron wants to call the Bible 'perfect', and why he has still not explained what he means by the word.



#52 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 01:43 AM

Friends once again you have not given any authority for your views (Scripture or Patristic) but it seems like you act like your personal opinions are infallible. Kindly give some authority for your views.

I will trust in the Holy Scriptures and stand with the Church fathers over peoples personal opinions on a online forum.

#53 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 01:53 AM

By perfect I mean without errors, true historically , true spiritually, true from beginning to end, for it was written by HIM who cannot lie.

#54 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 01:58 AM

Your zeal to prove Holy Scripture is not perfect I find troubling.

#55 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 02:01 AM

from the catechism by st Philaret of Moscow approved by the holy synod. http://www.pravoslav...of_philaret.htm

Which states in question 19 19. What is that which you call holy Scripture? Certain books written by the Spirit of God through men sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. These books are commonly termed the Bible.

#56 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 14 March 2014 - 02:33 AM

By perfect I mean without errors, true historically , true spiritually, true from beginning to end, for it was written by HIM who cannot lie.

 

So this is where our disagreement is, which I suspected is purely semantics.  If you mean perfect by meaning 'without errors, true historically, true spiritually, true from beginning to end', then I am sure all of us here are in agreement.  In this case, we should rejoice!

 

  Personally, my definition of perfect is not only limited to those definitions.  For as I pointed out to you earlier, something can be without error and not be perfect, like my child's book report about bike riding.  For the reader may be given true and factual and inerrant information about bike riding, but it doesn't mean that they will have perfect knowledge of bike riding just by reading the book report. 

 

And likewise, there are many who will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who never read the Scriptures (the thief on the cross is one I can think of from the top of my head), just as there are those who will learn to ride a bike without reading a manual.  So while the Scriptures are inerrant and invaluable in preaching the truth, it still remains inefficient in that it is not the Scriptures which saves but Christ Himself, and for this reason (and in this sense) I do not believe the Scriptures to be perfect but rather Christ alone to be perfect.

 

I hope you can understand that our disagreement is semantic and if your definition of perfect is as you say above, then there is no disagreement between us. 


Edited by Antonios, 14 March 2014 - 02:35 AM.


#57 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 14 March 2014 - 04:23 AM

By perfect I mean without errors, true historically , true spiritually, true from beginning to end, for it was written by HIM who cannot lie.

 

Do you think there are any scientific errors in the Holy Scriptures Aaron?



#58 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 04:37 AM

Antonios then it is good to agree brother.

Rick no how could there be if it was written by the One who framed the universe and created everything.

#59 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 04:37 AM

deleted

Edited by Aaron R., 14 March 2014 - 04:41 AM.


#60 Aaron R.

Aaron R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 04:47 AM

Like I heard before "if you believe Genesis 1 then the rest of the Bible poses no problem. I would believe if it said Jonah swallowed the whale."

Edited by Aaron R., 14 March 2014 - 04:48 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users