Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

If the written Word is not on earth perfectly I can not show you any perfect written proof of anything at all.

And an imperfect proof is no proof at all.

Shalom,
Steven

As Scripture points out (ones I've posted above), perfection means striving towards perfection, as clarified by the Apostle Paul. A person is counted perfect in God's eyes is someone who is working and striving towards the goal of perfection, but is not necessarily perfect in all regards (as Christ is).

Following the metaphor I outlined, a perfect copy/translation can be one made by faithful translators who strove towards perfection, but is not necessarily perfect in all regards (as the Original was).

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by cookiemonster

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psa 119:89. For me, this clearly says that God's Word is settled (total, perfect) in heaven.

Where did you come up with your private definition of "settled?" You have re-defined a word to make the verse say something it does not.

Deuteronomy 30:11-12 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

While I am not a KJV onliest, I don't believe that people useing these new versions will go to hell because they use other versions. But it is all to clear that people using these new bastardised verisons are being affected, and not in a good maner.
Jesus referd to the Word of God as food ,

4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4.
I believe that verse, I believe that the Word of God, the holy Bible is our spiritual food source. When we neglect to read, (or eat) it we are starving our selves.
If our food source is tainted by satans lies, it is indeed a corrupt food source. How can a NIV be God's word when it has no idea who killed goliath, or that it was lucifer who was cast out of heave, not the morning star of Revelation 22:14
Now in the OT, if a priest came into contact with something unclean during a sacrifice, the whole sacrifice would beconsidered unclean and the preast would have to restart.
If that is true, then certintly the NIV can in no wise be the word of God. There were atleased two of the NIV commitie members who were open unrepentent sodomites. One of them was the head editor of the OT. And the second was a sodomite woman who was also into the Occult . (read Gale Ripplingers Book "New age Bible verisons)
Let me ax you a question, what good would it be to me, or anyone else if Gods perfect word was only in the Greek and Hebrew originaly autographs.
Can you tell me were I can get a copy, cause last time I checed nobody at any one time ever had all 66 original autographs in one volume.
This is my conviction on Greek and hebrew, its not scripture, but I think theres something to it.
If your using Hebrew or Greek to edifie, or glorifie Gods word the AV 1611, thats one thing, but If you are using Hebrew or Greek to correct God's word, to prove it wrong then you are putting yoursefl into the same position that Eve put herself into in the Garden. Your making your self God by saying, "yea, hath God said"? I believe that is a very dangerous place to be in. Your setting your self above God's word when it says "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Ps 138:2

Originally Posted by Diligent

Where did you come up with your private definition of "settled?" You have re-defined a word to make the verse say something it does not.

It's not my private definition of "settled" - in my "American Dictionary of the American Language", a facsimilie of Noah Webster's actual 1828 edition, it says "settle" means "to establish", "to confirm," "to free from doubt," "to make certain or permanent," "to fix," "not to suffer to doubt or waver". Do these not mean "total" and "perfect," the words I used? How have I re-defined the word, & what is your understanding of "settled"?

Originally Posted by Diligent

Deuteronomy 30:11-12 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Note that in the Deuteronomy verse, God is speaking about the "commandment which" He commanded the Israelites "this day". Obviously the commandment was spoken by God at that moment in time ("this day"), so it does not harm my metaphor in that it can count as "Original" and was on earth at that moment.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by cookiemonster

It's not my private definition of "settled" - in my "American Dictionary of the American Language", a facsimilie of Noah Webster's actual 1828 edition, it says "settle" means "to establish", "to confirm," "to free from doubt," "to make certain or permanent," "to fix," "not to suffer to doubt or waver". Do these not mean "total" and "perfect," the words I used? How have I re-defined the word, & what is your understanding of "settled"?

Are you kidding? You answered your own question.

BTW, I deal with this issue here:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/staggs-treatise.html

Note that in the Deuteronomy verse, God is speaking about the "commandment which" He commanded the Israelites "this day". Obviously the commandment was spoken by God at that moment in time ("this day"), so it does not harm my metaphor in that it can count as "Original" and was on earth at that moment.

What are you saying -- that we don't have any commandments? And if we do (of course we do), your position is that they are in heaven -- not here. How absurd. God's word is perfect. We either have it or we don't -- there isn't a middle ground. If it is imperfect, it's not God's word!

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

A nice article.

Originally Posted by Diligent

I deal with this issue here:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/staggs-treatise.html

I like this point, which is pretty much identical to the basic paradox/fallacy that I shared today.

Diligent:
"Honest and Biblical Pointers" (how Mr. Ng can determine what is Biblical when God's word is hidden from him in heaven I do not know. Perhaps Mr. Ng has some sort of personal inspiration?)

It always amazes me how folks want to argue against the existence of pure and tangible and perfect scripture from scripture. If the scripture is not there in our hands, and perfect, it cannot prove anything.

"Show me from Scripture ! show me from Scripture ! ... "

The skeptic position is more honest than the textual apostate. The skeptic simply says pure scripture does not exist. The skeptic does not make a pretension of using scripture to prove its non-existence.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Diligent

Are you kidding? You answered your own question.

BTW, I deal with this issue here:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/staggs-treatise.html

I'm not clear as to what you're pointing out; I read the various interpretations of the Hebrew word natsab and I understand it to include the concepts of total, perfect, and preserve.

Websters 1828:
settle: to establish, to confirm, to free from doubt, to make certain or permanent, to fix, etc.
preserve: to keep or save from injury or destruction, to uphold, to sustain, to save from decay, etc.

To be settled is to be made free from doubt, permanent, and fixed; thus God's Word must be in a state of perfection and completion (total) - "in heaven". If permanent and fixed, it is in a state of preservation.

Perhaps we have different understandings of the English language.

Originally Posted by Diligent

What are you saying -- that we don't have any commandments? And if we do (of course we do), your position is that they are in heaven -- not here. How absurd. God's word is perfect. We either have it or we don't -- there isn't a middle ground. If it is imperfect, it's not God's word!

Of course we have God's commandments; I've discussed the perfection issue previously.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

It always amazes me how folks want to argue against the existence of pure and tangible and perfect scripture from scripture. If the scripture is not there in our hands, and perfect, it cannot prove anything.[/COLOR]

Can an imperfect (in our understanding) man communicate the Gospel? Can't also an imperfect (in our understanding) copy or translation also communicate the Gospel?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks

Originally Posted by cookiemonster

Can an imperfect (in our understanding) man communicate the Gospel? Can't also an imperfect (in our understanding) copy or translation also communicate the Gospel?

A totally different question than what I brought up in my two posts.

Please, if you want to discuss, go back to my posts and tell me why you want someone to prove the purity of Scripture from Scripture -- if all scripture on earth is impure (as you claim) it can prove nothing at all anyway.

Whether impure writings can "communicate" a bit is another question. Impure writings, mixed and leavened, could never be relied upon for proof of anything.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Please, if you want to discuss, go back to my posts and tell me why you want someone to prove the purity of Scripture from Scripture -- if all scripture on earth is impure (as you claim) it can prove nothing at all anyway.

Steve, in my earlier post I posted my understanding of God's view of perfection: to be perfect means we are to strive towards perfection.

I also wrote earlier: Though imperfect (in our understanding), faithful copies and translations can still considered to be the "perfect" word of God, and can communicate God's Gospel, though through a "glass darkly". They can be considered to be "perfect" as the translators strove for perfection.