The Deity Of Christ In The NIV And KJV

And I never did get my question answered.

Why doesn't the KJV capitalize "He, Him, His" since these words refer to the diety?

Like I said, I didn't expect an answer.

 

Why limit your question to the KJV? They were simply following the example of earlier English Bibles: Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1534), Cranmer (1539), Geneva (1557), and Rheims (1582). You may be interested to know that many MVs also practice this, including the NIV and the ESV. Those versions that do capitalize these pronouns are adding something that is not found in the Greek or Hebrew.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. (KJV)

 

Because of Salamander's argument that some versions didn't capitalize "Savior" and by not doing so were showing disrespect to God. He said this was the case with the NIV, which is not true. He was claiming that he followed certain grammatical rules and my question was to him. If this is a rule of grammer, then why doesn't the KJV capitalize the personal pronouns of God? If he is going to criticize other versions for making this grammatical error, then he must be willing to apply it to the KJV as well.
He has stilll not answered my question.

 

FTR folks, the word some of you are tossing around here, occasionally is "deity", not "diety".

A "diety" is what I need to go on, and maybe I would lose some more "weighty".

Signed, Language Cop

 

Well, excuuuuuuuse meity! :laugh:

 

True; and of course, any English translation is also adding book titles, commas, conversion of weights and measures, question marks, capitalization of proper nouns, italic typeface, spaces between words, quotation marks, indication of paragraphs, chapter numbers, 'red' lettering, parentheses, dashes or ellipses, exclaimation marks, Arabic numerals, etc. (as compared to most MSS).

 

I suppose the difference just MIGHT be that "Saviour" is a proper noun and "he,his",etc. are PRONOUNS.:godisgood:

 

I should hope the seriousness of your interjection was more aptly applied to the cause than this. Simple spelling updates are alot different than completely different words being used.

Since Yeshua Ha'Mashiach is "Saviour"/ "Savior" and neither a "saviour/savior" I believe my stance is well justified to object to lesser renderings of the only Saviour of all mankind.

 

My Savior was never lost

 

Nope, a simple omission of the "a" was a typo, not a mis-spelling.

You copied and pasted what you thought were contradictory statements used in the same sentence and mocked them on that misrepresentation of what was actually said.

Go hit yourself with that billyclub/night-stick, throw yourself in the back of the patrol car and please get some one else to haul you off to the jailhouse for such a heinous crime.

I wonder if you're really such an observing "language cop" if the exception to a certain grammatical rule will be seen by the scrutiny of that critical eye of yours?

 

Excellent response; hence, the danger in assigning spiritual motives to spelling.

rbell<----quitethankfulthatweputspacesbetweenwordsnow
(breath)andjudiciouslyusecapitalletters.

 

More like the dangers to inaccurate versions when all are used appropiately to allow the full meaning to be received without the errors of those inaccurate versions.:wavey:

 

I just tried to diagram this sentence and appeared to have pulled something.

How's that again? Rephrase...

 

It was in Salamanderese; it said: 'I am always right. You are always wrong'.

(I don't really understand it either, I just know that's what he always means.)

 

Technically, yes.

However, I was combining the essences of three posts of mine, plus some of yours, without naming them specifically, in my last response.

Ed

 

Now I get it, I think. Apparently you mean such "lesser renderings" such as that of David, who said this of God:

The Psalmist:

The LORD (Yahweh) Himself, speaking through and recorded by Isaiah:

Jeremiah:

And Paul:

Sorry, the version I use has "greater renderings", at least in these instances, as the renderings are in a better, more consistent, and are in a more reverent manner when referring to the Lord, in both the OT and NT. (Gotta' admit, the NIV, even if the preferred version of my bride, only gets a 20% better score here, with only 3 of the above 15 underlined instances having 'better renderings'.)

BTW, and for free, I'll also toss in Hos. 13:4, as an example, and compare this in the KJV with the NIV, which a few have spoken of, in such 'glowing terms' on this forum. ['Burn it!', 'Toss it in the trash.' (I would assume, so it will be burned, just as the false accusation has been made on this same forum about the intended destiny of some NT mss, before they were allegedly 'rescued' by von Tischendorf.)] And I'll also compare it with the DARBY, NKJV, HCSB, and YLT.

Even thought Robert Young "got it" nearly a century and a half ago, I guess it still has taken some other folks a while longer and slowly, but surely, a few more times to get it right, hunh?

I am happy to learn that both you, Salamander, and I are in agreement that Yeshua Ha'Mashiach (and I presume, Yahweh) is the "Savior", and not merely "a saviour", and that you also would not condone a version with any such "lesser ren..."

? ? ?

Oh, wait! You do condone such a version, don't you??

And just after I thought I'd figured it out, no less. Suddenly, I'm all confused again.

Ed

 

It is the use of grammar incorporated to give answer to one's dilemma without wasting time to include other words simply to take up space.

The danger done to inaccurate versions is using captilization where it belongs .

 

You should get a crystal ball and start reading palms.:wavey:

 

Yep, you missed it.

 

I would rather not be assimilated into a society which remains confused and guessing what the word of God is.

I believe the context and prior mention of God over-rules your summerization insisting upon some sort of innaccuracies in the text of the KJB.

In specific references you made no arguement to substanciate your jest.

No wonder.

BTW, it's YHWH.