Question about “But”

[Andiamo]

When a verse begins with “But” in KJV is it always completing/connecting to the thought/context in the previous verses? Or can it sometimes introduce a new thought? Example James 1:22. I see it as introducing a new thought but the womens meeting leader is ending the study there (vs 19-22) and not including verse 23-24.

 

[Kaatje]

When a verse begins with “But” in KJV is it always completing/connecting to the thought/context in the previous verses? Or can it sometimes introduce a new thought? Example James 1:22. I see it as introducing a new thought but the womens meeting leader is ending the study there (vs 19-22) and not including verse 23-24.

Interesting question.
Strong explaines the "but" as:
1161. ‭δε‭ de ‭deh‭; a primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.: — also, and, but, moreover, now [often unexpressed in English].

Im my Dutch translations there is no "But". The word is translated as "And".
So, it could very well be a new thought. But of course it still maintains a connection with the verses above.

Hope that helps some?

 

[mattfivefour]

I strongly dislike New Testament Bible studies that only focus on part of an epistle rather than the whole; especially in the case of shorter epistles, such as James. But to your question: the Greek de can be either adversative or continuative, and sometimes both. You have to identify which from its context. "Moreover" is an acceptable translation according to Winer's grammar as quoted in the Thayer's Greek Lexicon; but again dependent on context.

As I study James 1:22 in its context, I believe "moreover" fits. In fact that is likely why some translations use the similar connective "and" rather than the adversative "but" to translate the de in this verse, while at least one uses the word "however" for the same purpose. Therefore, given the content of the verse, I believe this "but" in the KJV and other translations can be read as introducing both an explanation of the foregoing and a fresh Idea that flows from the previous Idea. So, if I were translating this I would choose the English "moreover" as likely being the most faithful to the author's thinking as he wrote.

All of what I have said may explain why your study leader chose to end the study at the verse they did while you believe it should continue. In my considered opinion, if they didn't want to study the entire book, they should have ended their particular study with verse 21. I am guessing your study leader, though, felt that verse 22 was a critical part of the thoughts being expressed in the previous verses. Therefore they thought that the "but" was adversative and explained (by contrast) how one should live as a response to what James had just said. So, they felt verse 22 finished the thoughts leading up to it. You, on the other hand, feel that the "but" introduces a new idea, which in fact it does-- an idea that is not fully finished until the end of the chapter (verse 27).

Does this help?

 

[Andiamo]

Interesting question.
Strong explaines the "but" as:
1161. ‭δε‭ de ‭deh‭; a primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.: — also, and, but, moreover, now [often unexpressed in English].

Im my Dutch translations there is no "But". The word is translated as "And".
So, it could very well be a new thought. But of course it still maintains a connection with the verses above.

Hope that helps some?

Thank you - so it appears it could be either or both. And the way the word is woven, it will probably connect with the above and below.

 

[Andiamo]

I strongly dislike New Testament Bible studies that only focus on part of an epistle rather than the whole; especially in the case of shorter epistles, such as James. But to your question: the Greek de can be either adversative or continuative, and sometimes both. You have to identify which from its context. "Moreover" is an acceptable translation according to Winer's grammar as quoted in the Thayer's Greek Lexicon; but again dependent on context.

As I study James 1:22 in its context, I believe "moreover" fits. In fact that is likely why some translations use the similar connective "and" rather than the adversative "but" to translate the de in this verse, while at least one uses the word "however" for the same purpose. Therefore, given the content of the verse, I believe this "but" in the KJV and other translations can be read as introducing both an explanation of the foregoing and a fresh Idea that flows from the previous Idea. So, if I were translating this I would choose the English "moreover" as likely being the most faithful to the author's thinking as he wrote.

All of what I have said may explain why your study leader chose to end the study at the verse they did while you believe it should continue. In my considered opinion, if they didn't want to study the entire book, they should have ended their particular study with verse 21. I am guessing your study leader, though, felt that verse 22 was a critical part of the thoughts being expressed in the previous verses. Therefore they thought that the "but" was adversative and explained (by contrast) how one should live as a response to what James had just said. So, they felt first 22 finished the thoughts leading up to it. You, on the other hand, feel that the "but" introduces a new idea, which in fact it does-- an idea that is not fully finished until the end of the chapter (verse 27).

Does this help?

Wow, yes that explains it well and helps a lot. And you are right about the focus part, because if we weren’t studying this epistle in such small chunks I wouldn’t have this frustration of it just chopping off where I feel the thought is not complete. This lady leading the study is all about getting people to slow way, way down and really dive into the meaning of scripture and applying it. Because so many are in the habit of quickly reading their chapter for the day and checking the box off. She has introduced the “inductive Bible study method” to the class (which I don’t technically do because it doesn’t work for me (or in my opinion, the Holy Spirit, at least with me) to follow written steps in order when studying the word.) Anyway that is why she only does 3-4 verses at a time. I feel we could do a chapter at a time and have the same outcome with less choppiness

 

[Andiamo]

I guess I will just do the best I can in the discussion without jumping ahead of her. I will apply the verse backwards but not forwards.I respect what she is trying to do with the class.

 

[Growing in Grace]

My church offers an annual reading plan and this year it is very slow, only two chapters a day. Prior to this we had a more aggressive plan of up to six chapters a day. I dearly value getting through ALL of the Bible several times, but going fast can make me lose focus.

This year's plan has definitely has slowed my down and that's good.

“inductive Bible study method”

I am not fond of this either, but support those teaching it.

 

[Andiamo]

My church offers an annual reading plan and this year it is very slow, only two chapters a day. Prior to this we had a more aggressive plan of up to six chapters a day. I dearly value getting through ALL of the Bible several times, but going fast can make me lose focus.

This year's plan has definitely has slowed my down and that's good.

I am not fond of this either, but support those teaching it.

I have only done the annual entire Bible reading thing twice… maybe three times? It was great for me to get a better, broad overview of each book. And it’s cool to know you have read the whole Bible! But I don’t do well on it. I don’t retain a whole lot of factual knowledge, so I quickly forget the names of the people and who is in what “story” in the Old Testament. Which makes me frustrated. Another thing is prophecy. I zipped through those books not understanding much at all what they were about. Psalms and proverbs were fine. But when I read the New Testament, I found myself grieving that I must read it so quickly to stay on pace.
The inductive study method is a good guideline for those who don’t already have a natural way to study.

 

[Baby Yoda]

I have only done the annual entire Bible reading thing twice… maybe three times? It was great for me to get a better, broad overview of each book. And it’s cool to know you have read the whole Bible! But I don’t do well on it. I don’t retain a whole lot of factual knowledge,

Same for me. Bible-in-a-year 3 times, but get much more out of specific readings, not on a calendar.

 

[Eric Nicholas]

I was brought up in church, at least for a time, but the very first book I read was Revelation. I somehow started backwards and to this day, it's my very favorite book of the Bible. It encompasses everything: The might of our Father, Christ the Victor, The Spirit about in the Tribulation, the dispensation of the Church coming to a glorious end, The Jews finally coming to the end of themselves, and the wrapping up of this entire cosmic slog that humans have struggled with since the beginning. It's ferocious, glorious, untamed, sobering, and final. God help us all.

 

[Andiamo]

I was brought up in church, at least for a time, but the very first book I read was Revelation. I somehow started backwards and to this day, it's my very favorite book of the Bible. It encompasses everything: The might of our Father, Christ the Victor, The Spirit about in the Tribulation, the dispensation of the Church coming to a glorious end, The Jews finally coming to the end of themselves, and the wrapping up of this entire cosmic slog that humans have struggled with since the beginning. It's ferocious, glorious, untamed, sobering, and final. God help us all.

Wow - what a book to read first! Did God give you understanding of it, or did you use a commentary or study guide to help?
Did you already have a good grasp of who were the Jews and who were the church?

 

[Eric Nicholas]

Wow - what a book to read first! Did God give you understanding of it, or did you use a commentary or study guide to help?
Did you already have a good grasp of who were the Jews and who were the church?

I knew very little and understood even less. To make it even more challenging, it was KJV with no commentary. But I sat there and chewed a bucket of bubblegum the entire way through the book while in my great grandfather's furnace room, under his old dingy shop lights. I got it down in one sitting. I knew whatever I was reading that I wanted it. Even as a child, I wanted to see the end of things. That has been in me since I can remember. But that book gave me projection into apologetics, prophecy, and a deep desire to see "Thy kingdom come".

 

[Andiamo]

I knew very little and understood even less. To make it even more challenging, it was KJV with no commentary. But I sat there and chewed a bucket of bubblegum the entire way through the book while in my great grandfather's furnace room, under his old dingy shop lights. I got it down in one sitting. I knew whatever I was reading that I wanted it. That book gave me projection into apologetics, prophecy, and a deep desire to see "Thy kingdom come".

That is so cool. God knew just how to get you hooked. I love it.