AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Honest question about the KJ capitalizations (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1302)

Greektim 05-28-2009 09:31 PM

Honest question about the KJ capitalizations
 
What is the rule of thumb when capitalizing the word "king" in the KJ? When should it be King or king? Or is there even a standard? Honest question with an honest inquiry.

bibleprotector 05-29-2009 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 20928)
What is the rule of thumb when capitalizing the word "king" in the KJ? When should it be King or king? Or is there even a standard? Honest question with an honest inquiry.

There is certainly particular and exact rules covering the use of the word "King" in regard to capital letters and lower case.

The word "king" is lowercase when used as a title or as a name.

When referring to God it is capital. At the start of a sentence or quoted speech it is capital.

When Jesus spoke of himself as "a king", he is using the general sense, not the specific.

Once these things are understood, we find that the man Melchisedec had a name which was prophetic of Christ. Melchisedec was merely a man, a king. But his name signified Christ, "King of ..." See Hebrews 7.

Tmonk 05-29-2009 03:17 AM

So its pretty standard rules of English then?

Brother Tim 05-29-2009 07:25 AM

Standard rules of Biblical English. :)

Not standard rules of modern English, or even 17th century English.

GT, thanks for the question!! It exposed a wonderful little secret signal about Melchisedec (thanks to Matthew's response) that I had never noticed. I had simply assumed if the name "King David" were in the Scriptures, then it would be capitalized based on the standard rules of English regarding titles. This was not so. Wow!

bibleprotector 05-29-2009 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 20967)
Standard rules of Biblical English. :)

Not standard rules of modern English, or even 17th century English.

GT, thanks for the question!! It exposed a wonderful little secret signal about Melchisedec (thanks to Matthew's response) that I had never noticed. I had simply assumed if the name "King David" were in the Scriptures, then it would be capitalized based on the standard rules of English regarding titles. This was not so. Wow!

When people try and point out "inconsistencies" in KJB grammar, the problem is that they don't understand the Bible English rules. Bible English actually makes sense, and it is (probably) always more involved than the simplistic modernist view makes out. (Which is why the modernist misses so much, and why there is a complete lack of "divinity in the details" of modern versions.

Very soon I will have a small booklet dealing with the exactness of Biblical English on my website. It is about these kinds of truths I call "glistering truths".

Updaters and "correctors" will say, "glistering", that's obsolete, that's archaic, that's nonsensical to the modern ear. But the very truth, the very exactness of God's Word in English, is given using exactly these things.

That is why "thees" and "thous" and capitals and lowercases and all such spelling issues should be retained and kept now as they have been received out of the proper KJB tradition.

There is absolutely no need to change perfection of the Word.

Brother Tim 05-29-2009 09:00 AM

GT, is your mouth too far open to allow your fingers to type? :D

I have been walking around since reading post #2, chewing on this uniqueness of the KJB. What a gem!!!

Greektim 05-29-2009 10:20 AM

Just for some help: why in Acts 25:13, 26, 36:2, & 19 does the 1611 us a lower case "king" and in Acts 25:24, 26:7, 26, & 27 use an upper case "King"? I am using the facsimile of the 1611 provided by e-sword. Not sure what the "PCE" says. But could someone explain why it goes back and forh.

Brother Tim 05-29-2009 10:30 AM

GT, in your academic work, you are often required to write papers. Good practice is to create a rough draft and then refine it. Later, when the paper is examined, the professor does not go back to the rough draft and question why you said thus and thus. In 1611, the translation was completed. With the PCE, the presentation has been refined to its final form.

Greektim 05-29-2009 10:35 AM

Good illustration I guess. BTW - "often required to write papers" is an understatement. Constantly required is more like it :D

Can you post what the PCE has for Acts 26:27? From what I can tell, but not sure, it reads a capital letter "King" whereas the rest doesn't.

Brother Tim 05-29-2009 11:03 AM

Ah, my dear Biblical-English-impaired friend, Acts 25:24 and Acts 26:27 both have "King Agrippa", while the rest (25:13, 25:26, 26:2, 26:7, 26:19) have "king Agrippa". Keenly observant fellows will notice that "King" in 25:24 is the beginning of a direct quote, therefore capitalized. "King" in 26:27 is the first word in the verse and therefore capitalized.

"Elementary, my dear Watson." :D

Greektim 05-29-2009 11:05 AM

I figured I would miss the obvious. Thanks for the help.

Brother Tim 05-29-2009 11:07 AM

Now, GT, about the significance, as pointed out by Matthew?

Greektim 05-29-2009 12:07 PM

The significance found in an Egnlish translation's capital letters of a Greek text that did not make use of such a practice? What about it? I don't see significance, I see bias in translation and interpretation. But then again, I didn't really understand the force of the so called significance. Could you explain it to me one more time?

Brother Tim 05-29-2009 02:51 PM

How can one describe the beauty of a sunrise to another who will not open his eyes?


Do you think that the exclusive capitalization of "King" in Hebrews 7 just coincidentally occurred? Does it not seem curious to you that it matches the typology of Melchisedec to Christ? and that NO OTHER earthly king so given the capitalized title? No, the Greek did not have the capitalization. I don't read Greek. Its grammar does not help me today. What I do have is a Book that has been so perfectly prepared under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that even the capital letters have a message hidden in them, such as "Spirit"/"spirit" and "King"/"king".

Greektim 05-29-2009 07:27 PM

Am I to understand that with this capitalization of "king" that there was new revelation in 1611+ which was not a part of the inspired originals?

Brother Tim 05-29-2009 08:01 PM

Not new revelation, just an eye-opener. It's been there all the time.

Greektim 05-29-2009 08:05 PM

If it has been there all the time, then I am missing the significance of the KJV's capitalization emphasis. If the KJV was bringing out a theological point like Melchizedek as a type of Christ by capitalizing "king", then what about the emphasis in capitalization pre-1611 or pre-English translations? The type might have been there, but the significance or the emphasis wasn't until the KJV. That seems to be 1 of 2 things: translators bias in the translation to make a theological point or new revelation.

ONEWAY 05-30-2009 04:08 PM

English is a different language then Greek...can't it be inspired or perfectly preserved in both languages?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 21058)
If it has been there all the time, then I am missing the significance of the KJV's capitalization emphasis. If the KJV was bringing out a theological point like Melchizedek as a type of Christ by capitalizing "king", then what about the emphasis in capitalization pre-1611 or pre-English translations? The type might have been there, but the significance or the emphasis wasn't until the KJV. That seems to be 1 of 2 things: translators bias in the translation to make a theological point or new revelation.


slatts1611AV 05-30-2009 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 21058)
If it has been there all the time, then I am missing the significance of the KJV's capitalization emphasis. If the KJV was bringing out a theological point like Melchizedek as a type of Christ by capitalizing "king", then what about the emphasis in capitalization pre-1611 or pre-English translations? The type might have been there, but the significance or the emphasis wasn't until the KJV. That seems to be 1 of 2 things: translators bias in the translation to make a theological point or new revelation.

I'm glad I can hold a Book in my hands and know its perfect. Maybe I'm just a dumb bunny, but after years of looking at "manuscript evidence"and the like, I realized that, at the end of the day, a person is going to humble themselves and realize that he is not the final authority or he is not.. Until that day comes, men will simply place themselves as that final authority. I'm not picking on you Brother Tim, but it just seems that when an answer is provided you look for a way 'out' of the answer, and then add several questions along with the first. I see no value to it whatsoever.

In Christ, Brother Shane

PeterAV 06-08-2009 03:22 PM

Good point there Brother Shane.
Debate should be for finding the truth.
But some see debate as a tool for final authority.
*******
In reality, the issue is over, as the AV is the winner hands down.
All that is needed is the mop up crew to clean up the mess that all this doubting has taken the world into.
*******
In which Bible do you believe all content is pure, GreekTim?

[I suppose Mr.Decker thinks 1 Corinthians 13:10 is a positive proof text for the nullification of any more tongues.]
Just like the Pre-tribbers with their Rev 4:1 proof text of a pre-trib rapture.
Come up hither
*******

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

Greektim 06-09-2009 06:02 PM

Actually, Mr. Decker doesn't use Revelation to prove the Pre-Trib Rapture other than the fact that the Church is not mentioned in the Tribulation passages. And I don't lean on that argument since it is an argument from silence (though it is an argument about silence so...).

pbiwolski 06-11-2009 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 21057)
Not new revelation, just an eye-opener. It's been there all the time.

Kind of a tough point to make actually.

However, new (advanced) revelations showing up in the AV is a lot easier to swallow after all.

pbiwolski 06-11-2009 01:54 PM

Then there's this:

Matt. 27:41-42
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

Mark 15:29-32
And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Luke 23:35-37
And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

Maybe it's the difference in who is actually being quoted here, but still, why the difference?

Bro. Parrish 06-11-2009 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 21058)
If it has been there all the time, then I am missing the significance of the KJV's capitalization emphasis.

Come on son, let's be clear... you "miss the significance" of the KJV as the complete and final authority anyway, so why are you still here beating about the bush and going on about "inspired originals" which you have never seen or handled?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 21058)
If the KJV was bringing out a theological point like Melchizedek as a type of Christ by capitalizing "king", then what about the emphasis in capitalization pre-1611 or pre-English translations? The type might have been there, but the significance or the emphasis wasn't until the KJV. That seems to be 1 of 2 things: translators bias in the translation to make a theological point or new revelation...

Ahhh yes, that nasty translator bias. And there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight. NOW you are finally getting to the point of your entire thread. Your preconceived notions on the Bible are peeking through your "honest questions," like worms between the apples. :cool:

bibleprotector 06-11-2009 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbiwolski (Post 21998)
why the difference?

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If you have questions, you should study to find the answer. I will give an overview, which would help for further studies.

There are reasons for the way "King" or "king" is used. I have already pointed out that when "king" is used in the general sense, and "King" when referring to recognition of the role of Christ.

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Joh 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

Joh 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

Joh 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

Joh 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Joh 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Joh 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

Notice clearly the sequence. Pilate asks if Jesus is a "king". In other gospels, we know that Pilate also asked if he were "King" (see Luke 23:3) in response to the accusations made against Christ.

Pilate then asks the Jews if he should release the "King", but the Jews keep saying they have no "king" but the Emperor. When Pilate writes the superscription for the cross, the Jews know full well that Pilate was meaning "King", because they wanted to change it to a self-appointed designation.

In Mark 15:18 the Roman soldiers mocked him as "King", but on the cross, people who read the accusation, and the soldiers, said "king" (see Luke 23:37).

If this were all studied out, the reasons would be revealed who said "king" and when and why, and also remembering that according to grammar, someone can be "a king" even though they are "the King" (of course, that same person can be "a King" and "the king", but there are reasons for that).

George 06-12-2009 09:06 AM

Re: "Honest question about the KJ capitalizations"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 22001)
Come on son, let's be clear... you "miss the significance" of the KJV as the complete and final authority anyway, so why are you still here beating about the bush and going on about "inspired originals" which you have never seen or handled?

Ahhh yes, that nasty translator bias. And there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight. NOW you are finally getting to the point of your entire thread. Your preconceived notions on the Bible are peeking through your "honest questions," like worms between the apples. :cool:


Aloha brother Parrish,

:amen: And there it is - for all to see! :fish:

GREEKtim wouldn't know what an "HONEST" question was if his life depended on it! :sad:

He has been trained in the perverse "SOCRATIC METHOD"; and he employs Jesuit "CASUISTRY" when dealing with issues. In other words - He's a Christian "SOPHIST"! :confused:

None of us is going to be able to pierce through the "mind set" of these "intellectual snobs". It's always the SAME with ALL of them! QUESTIONS, always QUESTIONS! But never HONEST or SINCERE QUESTIONS! They are always "LOADED" QUESTIONS! QUESTIONS "contrived" (by corrupt minds) to elicit specific ANSWERS, that then can be "pounced upon" in order to PROVE the questioner's POINT OF VIEW; or QUESTIONS "designed" to EMBARRASS the person being asked the QUESTION. But never the kind of "questions" that demonstrate a SINCERE desire to know, or arrive at "Truth".

Look up the "Socratic Method" of teaching. Look up the words "Casuistry", "Sophism", and "Sophist" and see if they don't FIT "GREEKtim", "Tmonk", and their "fellow travelers". And if you want to know how we Christians are to "deal" with people like - "GREEKtim", "Tmonk", and their "fellow travelers" - study how the Lord Jesus Christ dealt with "disingenuous" people (who came to Him - ASKING "QUESTIONS") in the four Gospels! I can tell you ahead of time - He didn't waste His time with them! :eek:

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
And "EVIL" takes on many "forms" - not just "carnal" things.

Quote:

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
And having lived around "Christians" for over 50 years, I can testify that we Christians (myself included) are NOT EXEMPT from these verses! :tsk:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
15 These things speak, and exhort, and
rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Jassy 06-12-2009 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 22029)

None of us is going to be able to pierce through the "mind set" of these "intellectual snobs". It's always the SAME with ALL of them! QUESTIONS, always QUESTIONS! But never HONEST or SINCERE QUESTIONS! They are always "LOADED" QUESTIONS! QUESTIONS "contrived" (by corrupt minds) to elicit specific ANSWERS, that then can be "pounced upon" in order to PROVE the questioner's POINT OF VIEW; or QUESTIONS "designed" to EMBARRASS the person being asked the QUESTION. But never the kind of "questions" that demonstrate a SINCERE desire to know, or arrive at "Truth".

This one paragraph really struck me, that this is EXACTLY what many people do. It is usually the ones that get BANNED that tend to post on a Forum in this way. Sometimes they will ask pointed questions that are meant to EMBARRASS a person or to try to get people to be "defensive" so that they can know that their attack worked! (Or they assume it did.) They often use subtle attacks on people. I call those "veiled threats."

Most of them don't WANT to know the truth - they only want to be RIGHT.

In order to sincerely DESIRE the TRUTH, we sometimes must humble ourselves to get it. There is no need to always be RIGHT, unless we are truly standing up for the Word of God. Then, of course, we must be FIRM and show the truth.

Often people who are self-righteous in their beliefs - thinking that they HAVE the truth and they're going to make people believe it one way or another - attempt to do so by ridiculing and belittling someone. To me, that is a very immature response.

When we desire the TRUTH, the Holy Spirit works in us to KNOW when we have erred away from the truth. If we are not too busy asserting our own self-righteousness to listen, we might discover some real GEMS.

I have been BLESSED by this Forum and I have discovered some of those real GEMS! All praise and glory and honor to the LORD for His gift of the Holy Spirit which works in those who desire the TRUTH.

Jassy

Steven Avery 07-18-2009 10:57 AM

Hebrews 7 capitalization - "King of righteousness"
 
Hi Folks,

The irony in this thread is that GreekTim has carefully been shown the beauty and accuracy of the King James Bible capitalization, and still he objects ! Note that GreekTim even acknowledged the accuracy :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim
The type might have been there, but the significance or the emphasis wasn't until the KJV.

Very good, GT ! So why do you continue to accuse ?
Let's go back to the your plaints.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim
Honest question with an honest inquiry.... If the KJV was bringing out a theological point like Melchizedek as a type of Christ by capitalizing "king", then what about the emphasis in capitalization pre-1611 or pre-English translations?

Clearly, they simply missed the nuance and perfection. e.g. In Hebrews 7 the Geneva goes all caps, Tyndale and Rheims NT the opposite -- all lower-case. (My quick glance.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim
.... translators bias in the translation to make a theological point or new revelation.. I see bias in translation and interpretation..

Brother Tim saw your problem well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

How can one describe the beauty of a sunrise to another who will not open his eyes?

Do you think that the exclusive capitalization of "King" in Hebrews 7 just coincidentally occurred? Does it not seem curious to you that it matches the typology of Melchisedec to Christ? and that NO OTHER earthly king so given the capitalized title? ... a Book that has been so perfectly prepared under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that even the capital letters have a message hidden in them, such as "Spirit"/"spirit" and "King"/"king".

So we see that GreekTim still wailed and accused the word of God, even after his specific questions were patiently and accurately answered.

Thank you Bro. Parrish and George for getting to the heart of the issues. And Matthew and Brother Tim for sharing so much. (Always have your antennae up when someone declares they are asking an "honest question" and then bypasses the true and deep answers.)

GreekTim, let us start at the beginning, using the Hebrews 7 example.

We appear to agree that the English offers us more information than the Greek in terms of capitalization, as in these verses in Hebrews.

Hebrews 7:1-2 (KJB)
For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all;
first being by interpretation King of righteousness,
and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;


And if this information is not used, e.g if "king of peace" is written, by your lock-box methods, that could also be considered a "translator bias", since the translator is then deciding that "king of peace" is not a divine title.

So we agree that the English gives us more information than Greek, and the translators are compelled to either be purer and wiser in English than the Greek, more precise as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Or they will lack competence and translate poorly. In other words, their translation must offer us more information, the question is whether they can be inspired by God to offer true understanding rather than inferior worldly translation.

Here is an example of a very poor translation, far inferior to the Geneva and the Tyndale above. They at least worked with a wooden consistency -- while missing the perfection given to us in the pure King James Bible.)

Hebrews 7:1:2 (HCSB - Holman)
For this Melchizedek-- King of Salem, priest of the Most High God,
who met Abraham and blessed him as he returned from defeating the kings,
and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything;
first, his name means "king of righteousness,"
then also, "king of Salem," meaning "king of peace"


Notice how the HCSB fights the sense and purity of the word of God. Ironically, the temporal king is capitalized -- and the three divine titles are uncapitalized. Not surprising from modernists. (Note: the HCSB does not make this error in Genesis 14:18, properly referring to the "king of Salem" where it is not a divine title..)

(Sidenote: the NKJV simply "loses" the accurate King James Bible capitalization of the divine titles. Another one is a long list of NKJV blunders.)

Now you ... trapped in your "GreekTim box", will have to accuse each of every English Bible of "bias". Remember there is no neutral choice in a translation decision like this, there is no middle ground between capitalization and non-capitalization. You will simply wallow in arrogance and accusation, because your vaunted Greek does not give you the full information.

So all translations simply cannot be true and pure, the word of God. And since you are limited to the Greek, Tim, you can never know from the Bible text directly the difference between the divine title and a human kingship.

And instead of understanding the English, you are forced to flail and wail at true and accurate translation, consistent and inspired by God, as "bias". Such a sad place to be. Better to simply be truly honest and learn -- and not be a false accuser of the word of God.

================================================

Those who want to read and study a bit about "King of righteousness", my suggestions from a commentary standpoint would be John Owen and Andrew Murray.

The holiest of all, an exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Andrew Murray
http://books.google.com/books?id=jPgOAAAAQAAJ


There is one book on the web that even has a section discussing this specific capitalization.

Who was Melchizedek? - Two Views - Jason Dulle and William Arnold III
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8985783/Who-Was-Melchizedek

Melchizedek is then called the King of righteousness. What pray tell could this possibly mean? Romans 3:10 says that "There is none righteous, no, not one." How much more to be the King (basileus - leader, ruler, king) of righteousness. The translators of the KJV, ASV, WEB, RWB, DBY, BBE and YTL even capitalize "King" here, realizing a claim to deity in the words "King of righteousness". Adam Clark comments:
The name Melchisedec is thus expounded in Bereshith Rabba, sec. 43, fol. 42, matsdie eth Yoshebaiv, "The Justifier of those who dwell in him;" and this is sufficiently true of Christ, but false of Jerusalem, to which the rabbins apply it, who state that it was originally called Tsedek, and that it justified its inhabitants.
"The Justifier of those who dwell in him?" It is only by being in God that anyone under any dispensation was ever justified. No one can be righteous on their own merit, and the source, the leader, the King of this righteousness is God alone.

Then we see that he is the "King of Salem, which is (or, "by interpretation," as said before), King of peace;" Now if this were talking about the geographical city of Salem, which later became Jerusalem, then why go on to explain it? This letter was written to the Hebrews. They of all people would know the meaning of the name of their holy city. Matthew, when writing to the Jews, takes no time to explain Jewish customs and ways as does Luke. This is because the people were already familiar with them. I believe that the writer was just giving an explanation of what is said about Melchizedek.

Incidentally one of the chapters in the Bible that has huge blunders in capitalization in many modern versions is Psalm 110 (the chapter with the second reference to Melchizedek) especially Psalm 110:1:

Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Psalm 110:4
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

This also makes a fascinating study.

One thing that is nice about all the subtile question attempts : in understanding the tainted question and then looking for the pure responses. .. they do encourage us to learn the word of God more excellently !

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.


Shalom,
Steven Avery

Greektim 07-18-2009 11:09 AM

I feel I need to reply because I think I am being falsly portrayed. I DID have an honest question. It was a bad oversight on my part. But through friendly dialogue, I was given a good answer. In post #11, I said thank you and was ready to go on my way.

Then in post #12, someone brought up a new dimension - the significance of the KJV capitalization. I did not bring that up. I did not have an alterior motive. So you guys are unjustly accusing me of something that I didn't intend to discuss. You don't have to agree w/ my views, but you can at least present my side of things based on accuracy of my view. That is the honest thing to do. That goes for George, Bro. Parish, Steven Avery, and anyone else ready to rebuke me for something I never intended to do.

Steven Avery 07-18-2009 11:32 AM

Hi Folks,

So GreekTim .. you are or are not accusing the King James Bible of "translator bias" (your specific accusation .. twice .. also interpretation bias) in the capitalization of Hebrews 7 and other verses ?

Or are you simply saying that you were not a false accuser until post #13 ?

That may be .. although I do not see how it is very relevant. You are maintaining that you had an initial and temporary "honesty" about the capitaliztion question .. which you chucked aside as soon as the deeper issues were addressed.

Shalom,
Steven

Greektim 07-18-2009 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 24301)
Hi Folks,

So GreekTim .. you are or are not accusing the King James Bible of "translator bias" (your specific accusation .. twice .. also interpretation bias) in the capitalization of Hebrews 7 and other verses ?

Or are you simply saying that you were not a false accuser until post #13 ?

That may be .. although I do not see how it is very relevant. You are maintaining that you had an initial and temporary "honesty" about the capitaliztion question .. which you chucked aside as soon as the deeper issues were addressed.

Shalom,
Steven

Whether I am or am not, that was not the point of this thread. I do not "maintian" that I had a "temporary" honest question. And I didn't chuck anything aside. My question was answered. I was ready to stop. And someone started a different question. Not my doing.

Steven Avery 07-18-2009 05:23 PM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim
Whether I am or am not, that was not the point of this thread. I do not "maintian" that I had a "temporary" honest question. And I didn't chuck anything aside. My question was answered. I was ready to stop. And someone started a different question. Not my doing.

So you just say anything you want ... and disclaim responsibility for your own words because it was not in your OP ? Amazing.

GreekTim, I specifically showed you how the English Bible gives us more information in Hebrews 7 than "the Greek" .. and also how the King James Bible has that information consistently and purely and sensibly. Yet you simply accuse the word of God by force of habit .. saying that truth and clarity is "translator bias" and "interpreters bias". Is that what seminary does to your thinking capability ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Greektim 07-18-2009 08:28 PM

I didn't go to seminary...

Anywho... if you want to get into this, start a new thread, b/c this one was not intended for the direction you are seeking to take it. Perhaps we can discuss this in an environment that is neutral???

Steven Avery 07-19-2009 03:12 AM

Hi Folks,

Actually I have not ever seen a "neutral" environment when it comes to the Bible. Much like there is not a "neutral" alternative between capitalizing a word in English or not capitalizing the word.

My purpose was simply to show you how you are trapped in a paradigmic box, virtually compelled to accuse the Bible even when it is pure and true and where you even understand and acknowledge the actual textual/interpretative issue and the superiority of the King James Bible text. That has been done. You were unconcerned about the fact that by your seminary-style training you make such accusations as a matter of habit, and instead went into a deflect mode.

If I felt that you really had an earnest desire to understand the paridigmic issues (related to the sophist exposition of George) I would likely recommend an alternative (not neutral) forum, if it was needful. However from experience I have found that you have simply blocked out the basic and fundamental issues, desiring to clutter your mind with pseudo-issues instead.

To reiterate GreekTim, because of your fundamental error, to be consistent you would have to accuse every single English Bible of "translational bias" .. even if one Bible is the pure and perfect word of God. Yet, in practice, due to the authority and perfection of the King James Bible, you will spew out the accusation the bulk of the time against one Bible, the Holy Bible, the King James Bible. This is because the authority and perfection is a challenge to your muddle no-pure-Bible perspective, (That pent-up defensive animus is why you didn't use a phrase like "translator's understanding" that would have at least had the benefit of masking your own bias.) Thus such accusations you use as an attempted salve -- throwing out little petty accusations against the pure word of God. The irony in this thread, why I took the time, was that you even accused after acknowledging that the Bible showing divinity of the titles through capitalization was 100% sensible. And since this was the forum where your bias and animus was shown, it remains the best thread to discuss the paradigmic box.

======================

Incidentally, for readers who may follow my discussion here, this is very similar to what you are up with in discussions with modern "textual critics". They simply cannot recognize any text as the pure and perfect word of God. It can go so far that not even one single verse can be so recognized. Why ? Their paradigmic box declares that they themselves, and their accepted "authorities", are the ones who determine the "word of God" (which then becomes not the "word of God" at all but the probability calculations of very confused men). And that this can change as their "science" evolves and as new "discoveries" are made, new wastebaskets are unearthed, and new interpretations and theories and conjectures and guesses are offered. So what is considered the likely "word of God" today can become a likely redaction tomorrow, and that can apply to a word, a phrase, a verse, a section, or more. (Once they get it to the level of a full book, they simply change the name of their unbelief to "source criticism" or "higher criticism" from "textual criticism" .. it is all the same skill-set of unbelief.)

Thus, their "science" must always attack any actual text, since if any Bible, in any language at all, even one book, is the pure and perfect word of God, then their "science" must simply close its doors, acknowledge the truth, at least for that book or section.

Thus they are trapped in the same paradigmic box of always attacking the pure word of God, as they have given themselves over to a false science falsely so called.

1Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,
avoiding profane and vain babblings,
and oppositions of science falsely so called:


Shalom,
Steven Avery


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study