\"*\"



You are watching: Do you capitalize word when referring to the bible

lifwynnfoundation.org Forum > general Forums> Religion and also Spirituality> Christianity
the word vs. The word (Messiah, Revelation, believe, scripture)
User Name
Remember Me
Password

Please register to take part in our discussions through 2 million other members - it\"s cost-free and quick! some forums can only be seen by registered members. After girlfriend create your account, you\"ll be able to customize options and accessibility all ours 15,000 brand-new posts/day with fewer ads.
View comprehensive profile (Advanced) or searchsite v Search Forums (Advanced)

\"*\"

\"*\"
katjonjj
\"*\"



See more: Does Kakashi Ever Reveal His Face Finally Seen In 'Naruto' Episode

This has really been on mine mind lately. When an English speaking/writing human reads a word that is capitalized (with exceptions for the an initial word the the sentence, etc.) we assume over there is some focus on the word itself, either it is a appropriate noun or together in God the denotes a particular God quite than just a generic god. So when I watch that believer capitalize the \"Word\" that God ns wonder why.When I watch the phrase \"the native of God,\" I photo God make a speech or speak something.. Nevertheless of who is truly communicating the speech. Yet once I watch the phrase \"the indigenous of God,\" ns can\"t help but photo a huge disney-like word character complete with legs, arms, and head. Together amusing as that mental picture is, it seems to detract from the original meaning of the phrase as soon as the \"W\" is capitalized..The psychic is prone to innuendos; and also illusion is identified to innuendo. Once you capitalize that or check out it that means long enough you train her mind come think the it prefer a person rather 보다 as a indigenous (as embodying one idea), a statement, a speech, etc. However the Greek native \"logos\" way just that... A word (as embodying one idea), a statement, a speech, etc. So room we redefining native here? or to be I absent something?If i compare some verses to one another, ns think that is much more clear:John 1:1 In the start was the Word, and also the word was with God, and also the Word to be God.Revelation 19:13 that is pull on in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is words of God.John 10:35 If he called them \"gods,\" come whom the word of God came--and the Scripture can not be broken--I see that in john 1:1 the \"w\" of word is capitalized yet for various reasons the the \"w\" of word in Rev. 19. I likewise see inconsistencies in the capitalization in Rev. 19. This is a location so in any type of other setup we would certainly see: \"The native of God\" as the title... Some versions have actually it that method some don\"t.. My suggest is the in john 10:35 the \"w\" in \"word the God\" is not capitalized however it is capitalized in man 1:1...Most Christians ns come in call with see Jesus as the word of God and also I agree he certainly carried the title, \"The word of God.\" However, what is the basis because that capitalizing that every time friend talk around the indigenous of God?I recognize that the initial Greek is no capitalized or anything so ns wonder if the man 1:1 use of the resources for indigenous is just confusing the statement john is trying to make.. Similar to one illusion. After ~ a while you start to think the the \"Word the God\" together a person. Is this important what john meant as soon as he wrote it in chapter 1, yet not in thing 10?Were the translators under the assumption that the location \"Word that God\" is what John intended to refer or is John merely talking about the thought, speech, sayings and even the will of God?Look in ~ the i in john 1 without the capitalization:In the beginning was the word, and also the indigenous was v God, and also the word was God; this one remained in the beginning with God; all points through the did happen, and without him taken place not also one thing that hath happened. In him to be life, and the life to be the light of men, and the light in the darkness go shine, and also the darkness did not perceive it.Suppose ns substitute one synonym in location of native (taking logos as \"saying\" as in john 4:37:In the start was the saying, and the speak was with God, and the saying was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through go happen, and without happened not even one thing that hath happened. In was life, and the life to be the irradiate of men, and the light in the darkness go shine, and also the darkness did not perceive it.In man 18:32 logos is singular yet translated saying or words indicating an ext of a entirety communication, a story, a plan, one idea... Come me.In the start was the idea, and also the idea was v God, and also the idea was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all points through go happen, and without taken place not even on point that hath happened. In was life, and also the life was the irradiate of men, and also the light in the darkness walk shine, and also the darkness did not perceive it. Currently when I see that that makes much more sense to me. Nothing happened that was not within the \"idea\" or \"plan.\" It likewise seems much more appropriate in that this is the development to the publication of John and is creating that God is sovereign, and affirming the the true Messiah carried the word native God. I also see that in city 5 of john 1, \"light\" is not capitalized however then in city 7 it is... Ns don\"t know why christians seem come personify points by including capitalization as soon as it appears to me the initial intent of the writer was not to personify words or the light, etc.???