The capricious interpretation of Bibleprotector and his claims to KJVOism

[bibleprotector]

So if Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit denote the same Person, they're synonyms, and your insistence that they're "not the same" becomes yet another "distinction without a difference" argument.

To me, this seems unimportant, but I'd be interested in how and why you seem to believe the distinction matters.

Your logic is not so sound. Different terms are not synonyms, even though they are describing the same person. The words "Lord", "Jesus" and "Christ" when describing the same person all have distinctive meanings. A title is not the same as a name, a function is not the same as a person.

Now, when you have a modernistic approach which claims to derive authority from the Greek text, then of course, you are going to be terribly confused when it comes to the distinctions being given in English.

When the Bible says "Holy Ghost" it is not saying the "Holy Spirit". The same person is intended, but there are clear distinctions between "Ghost" and "Spirit", distinctions subtle or profound, which build together to give the full Biblical description (and doctrine) concerning this, and every other issue where differences in wording, spelling or capital letters bears out the fuller picture.

Those who reject the perfection of the KJB are subject to some level of a simplified, warped or unclear understanding in this area. The ramifications of this view means that while the Scripture has been sufficiently presented and understood in past ages, it is now in this time when we are able to behold the distinctness in clarity. This view, of course, is an affront to cessationists and those who think that full truth existed prior to 100 AD only.

 

[bibleprotector]

Yes. Why imply difficulties where none exist? The truth is that your entire caption "The capricious interpretation of Bibleprotector" is sensationalism without substance.

If it was sensationalism, then the points would be easily toppled. You haven't even attempted to debate the actual OP.

Please explain why you have produced your own edition that does not capitalize Spirit in places where it is obviously referring to Diety.

If something could be "easily toppled" it implies that it stands. But since you have only presented a fabricated view, there is nothing to "topple", because the OP is a litany of errors and false accusations.

As to the specific question, it shows the depraved and ill intent of those who want to be my enemies. FSSL asks, "Please explain why you have produced your own edition that does not capitalize Spirit in places where it is obviously referring to Diety."

1. I did not produce my own edition, but replicated what was in the consensus of existing copies which matched editorially to a class now called the "Pure Cambridge Edition", i.e. a series of impressions and printings of the KJB made by Cambridge University Press and other publishers from around the 1920s.

2. When deity is represented in the King James Bible, it does not follow that a capital letter must be used. This is also evidenced in numerous editions.

3. There are many places in many KJB editions where the word "spirit" is given lower case.

4. It is wrong to assume that all these cases must mean the Holy Ghost, but even where it does mean the Holy Ghost, it is wrong to assume that there must be a capital "S" Spirit at every place, because there is distinct information or meaning conveyed by the lower case "spirit" usage (see, for example, Ex. 31:3 or Ex. 35:31).

5. The actual issue where the KJB is being challenged now by modern versionists is on an issue to do with a false hermeneutic, and that behind that is really another motive, namely, adherence to a wrong belief-system. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3). Let's be clear as to what may really be the issue here: there are no answers that I can give that will satisfy those whom God has raised up as vessels fit unto wrath. And if this be so, then if you find yourself in that role, play your part, and drink Psalm 11:6.

 

[rsc2a]

Arguing with a  KJVo-ist about word meaning is akin to arguing with a  scientologist about psychology.

 

[bibleprotector]

Arguing with a  KJVo-ist about word meaning is akin to arguing with a  scientologist about psychology.

So, you admit to arguing, i.e. striving about words.

 

[SAWBONES]

So if Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit denote the same Person, they're synonyms, and your insistence that they're "not the same" becomes yet another "distinction without a difference" argument.

To me, this seems unimportant, but I'd be interested in how and why you seem to believe the distinction matters.

Your logic is not so sound. Different terms are not synonyms, even though they are describing the same person. The words "Lord", "Jesus" and "Christ" when describing the same person all have distinctive meanings. A title is not the same as a name, a function is not the same as a person.

That's not in view here, merely the use of "Ghost" vs. "Spirit", which in this case are synonyms.
You seem to keep avoiding any sort of direct, specific explanation about any supposed difference.

Now, when you have a modernistic approach which claims to derive authority from the Greek text, then of course, you are going to be terribly confused when it comes to the distinctions being given in English.

When the Bible says "Holy Ghost" it is not saying the "Holy Spirit". The same person is intended, but there are clear distinctions between "Ghost" and "Spirit", distinctions subtle or profound, which build together to give the full Biblical description (and doctrine) concerning this, and every other issue where differences in wording, spelling or capital letters bears out the fuller picture.

Presumption on your part, followed by gobbledegook. None of those points are at issue.

Those who reject the perfection of the KJB are subject to some level of a simplified, warped or unclear understanding in this area. The ramifications of this view means that while the Scripture has been sufficiently presented and understood in past ages, it is now in this time when we are able to behold the distinctness in clarity. This view, of course, is an affront to cessationists and those who think that full truth existed prior to 100 AD only.

Whatever.
You keep referring to these ideas which involve pigeonholing those who don't believe just the same things you believe.

Please: offer your own understanding of WHAT, exactly, the difference is between ghost and spirit in the specific usage of Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit in the KJV.

If you refuse, or you again circumvent being other than frank and clear, you're simply marring your integrity here.

 

[FSSL]

2. When deity is represented in the King James Bible, it does not follow that a capital letter must be used. This is also evidenced in numerous editions.

3. There are many places in many KJB editions where the word "spirit" is given lower case.

Too bad. You tell us that capitalization is one of the facets of language that is subtle in noting differences. Now you find yourself defending the idea that numerous editions do not use a capital letter.

My problem is NOT with the KJV. I can understand that capitalization was not standardized in 1611.

My problem is with the KJVO who tells us that capitalization does make a difderence in meaning and confuses the Holy Spirit.

And, Yes, we have evidence that your edition is your own capricious compilation. If not... tell us the specific edition and date you exalt. The "class of editions around 1920 doesn't work."

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

we have evidence that your edition is your own capricious compilation. If not... tell us the specific edition and date you exalt.

While the question is a fair question ... if there are many editions that are virtually identical to the PCE as published, yet every word in each edition has not been checked (understandably, since they are not in computer text format), or there are some little departures including printing errors, why would the PCE compilation be capricious?

capricious: given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.

Steven Avery

 

[bibleprotector]

Too bad. You tell us that capitalization is one of the facets of language that is subtle in noting differences. Now you find yourself defending the idea that numerous editions do not use a capital letter.

I defend facts. I stated a fact. However, since there is only one exact correct truth, then out of these facts, the issue must be resolved, as your own textual critical studies would well inform you, that the Scripture is true, regardless of copyist errors or spelling variations. And yet, you willfully ignore that I am actually upholding a standard edition.

My problem is NOT with the KJV. I can understand that capitalization was not standardized in 1611.

Of course you have a problem with the KJB. But it would be wrong to equate the KJB with being locked to the edition of 1611. Hence my position remains, while all your accusations fall to pieces. Since you know that there was a lack of standardisation in the past, you are recognising standardisation has come to pass. That is exactly my position, which you claim to be against.

My problem is with the KJVO who tells us that capitalization does make a difderence in meaning and confuses the Holy Spirit.

Every letter, punctuation mark and word is important, so of course each individual thing, as part of the whole, is important. And so, of course there is a difference in matters, if you were to substitute "Holy Spirit" for "Holy Ghost" or alter the case of a word. Ultimately, it would put into peril the idea of the perfect work of God, in such trivial matters where meaning was not affected. The issue is not just meaning, but the doctrine of the workmanship of God, and divine providence.

And, Yes, we have evidence that your edition is your own capricious compilation. If not... tell us the specific edition and date you exalt.

That's a fake accusation. Your "evidence" is just your biased fabricated interpretation. The Edition which I uphold is the one that was printed from the 1920s onwards, numerous times. You are falsely limiting an Edition to a one-time printing, which is not how editing works.

 

[bibleprotector]

If you refuse, or you again circumvent being other than frank and clear, you're simply marring your integrity here.

I have no problem with answering your question, but you are essentially setting up a false standard, whereby whatever answer I give, does not satisfy you, or gives you ground to therefore falsely say that I am marring my integrity. Let's be honest here: in the eyes of the enemies of the perfection of the KJB, clearly I am already marred. According to those who reject the perfection of the KJB, proponents of the KJB have no integrity anyway. So, why should I cast the pearls before the swine and answer, knowing that I should only get a rending from them?

What you want to believe is that there is no difference between "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit". What you want to believe is that there is no difference between "Spirit" and "spirit" when it seems, by your assessment, to refer to God. So then, why goad me to answer what you don't want to hear?

But you will say that I have ingeniously contrived not to actually answer the question. But knowing such enemies, they will put a negative word for "ingeniously".

 

[FSSL]

The Edition which I uphold is the one that was printed from the 1920s onwards, numerous times. You are falsely limiting an Edition to a one-time printing, which is not how editing works.

Physically, you must have used a printed/digital edition. That would either be a single text or you compiled multiple texts. We have yet to see the evidence of that particular singular text. They do not come with the date "about the 1920s."

 

[FSSL]

...unaccountable changes...

Works for me!

 

[bibleprotector]

Physically, you must have used a printed/digital edition. That would either be a single text or you compiled multiple texts. We have yet to see the evidence of that particular singular text. They do not come with the date "about the 1920s."

Your lack of seeing is for want of looking. All information is on my website. Rather, you appear to just want to fabricate a false scenario.

If you looked, you would see that I used many representatives of that Edition, from various year dates.

Any observer would realise that the corpus of said representatives were representing the same Edition text.

There are numerous printings of it, examples I used dated from 1931 to 2007.

To demand that some edition, being printed in, say, 1999, should reference it coming from "about the 1920s" is absurd. Therefore, whatever attempted objection is being made concerning the provenance of said Edition copies, it is of no consequence. Thus rendering baseless and easily dismissing the false charge that such a thing is "capricious".

 

[rsc2a]

KJVo-ism : using 10,000 words when 10 will do.

 

[FSSL]

If you looked, you would see that I used many representatives of that Edition, from various year dates.

... and ended up with your own "representative."

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

capricious: given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.

...unaccountable changes...

Works for me!

If you are trying to rail and accuse. However, for actual accuracy, you would have to show a departure from the Cambridge editions of that era.

All singular editions are likely to have some printing errors and even perhaps a couple of textual differences.  However, if the PCE represents the standard as represented, there is nothing capricious.

Steven Avery

 

[bibleprotector]

If you looked, you would see that I used many representatives of that Edition, from various year dates.

... and ended up with your own "representative."

You seem to be admitting that the electronic text on my website is nothing different from what has been printed for decades.
You do realise that the whole point of the text on my site is that it is freed from typographical errors, whereas any printed book may contain a printer's error, for example, missing a full stop or something? Textual critics and editors know that to have an exemplar is proper and right.

 

[FSSL]

If you are trying to rail and accuse. However, for actual accuracy, you would have to show a departure from the Cambridge editions of that era.

I opened with a list of problems. These problems still remain in the Bibleprotector text. Do his text "depart from the Cambridge editions?" It must. He admitted that his representation is from many representations. He must have a list of changes, somewhere. Unless his text is the final 1931 Cambridge (and he will not claim that), his exaltation of his particular text demonstrates that he capriciously set up his own "exemplar."

However, if the PCE represents the standard as represented, there is nothing capricious.

What accountability has Bibleprotector set up to make sure that his "representative" is THE exemplar? He was not involved with the Cambridge editorial committee.

What makes this so interesting is that KJVOs are questioning where to get this hard-to-find "exemplar." Were it really the genuine exemplar, that would not even be a question.

God does not give ANY PERSON the sole guardianship of His word. God preserves His word.

 

[SAWBONES]

If you refuse, or you again circumvent being other than frank and clear, you're simply marring your integrity here.

I have no problem with answering your question, but you are essentially setting up a false standard, whereby whatever answer I give, does not satisfy you, or gives you ground to therefore falsely say that I am marring my integrity. Let's be honest here: in the eyes of the enemies of the perfection of the KJB, clearly I am already marred.

Over & over, ad nauseum, there simply are no "enemies of the KJB".

If you consider that Christians who don't believe in the ultimate perfection of your "PCE" are "enemies of the KJB", you're simply wrong

You seem to prejudge everything.

I'm not aiming to condemn you, merely trying to understand exactly what it is you believe.
If you refuse to discuss the details of your beliefs about purported differences between spirit, Spirit and Ghost as written in the KJV, then there's nothing we can discuss.

According to those who reject the perfection of the KJB, proponents of the KJB have no integrity anyway. So, why should I cast the pearls before the swine and answer, knowing that I should only get a rending from them?

Oh, c'mon. You're effectively calling us swine now if we don't share your belief system? How can you hold any dialogue then?

If the "pearls" of your beliefs are real, they'll be safe, and I personally promise not to "rend".

What you want to believe is that there is no difference between "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit". What you want to believe is that there is no difference between "Spirit" and "spirit" when it seems, by your assessment, to refer to God. So then, why goad me to answer what you don't want to hear?

I'm not goading you to do anything, just trying to get a plain answer out of you!

But you will say that I have ingeniously contrived not to actually answer the question. But knowing such enemies, they will put a negative word for "ingeniously".

I'm not your enemy. I do think you have eccentric beliefs, but I mean you no harm.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

So... what does Bible"protector's" Bible do? It FAILS to captitalize "Spirit" when it is obvious that the Holy Spirit is being addressed. Here are some examples from Bible"protector's" unreliable KJV...
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8

 
Do you think that this is proper capitalized too ?

Luke 23:46 
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:
and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Do you think that this is proper capitalized too ?

Luke 23:46 
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:
and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Steven Avery

Drop the "too" at the end of the question. Yes. Luke 23:46 has proper capitalization.