The Dus-ti Matrix

The etymology of the term begins with the Greek words for “some things hard to be understood” in II Peter 3:16, which are “dusvonta tina.”  The transliteration of the Greek is “dusnohta tina” from which we extracted “dus” from “dusnohta” and “ti” from “tina” to build the word “dus-ti.”  We are using the word “matrix” in its sense of “something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form.”  The term “dus-ti matrix” is pronounced “dus” (rhymes with “must”) – “ti” (rhymes with “bye”) “ma” (rhymes with “day”) – “trix” (rhymes with “bricks”).  It is from the Dus-ti Matrix that a Christian derives their power.  We note, in passing, that the dus-ti matrix is the subject of the science of idesistemology.

This is a momentous moment for biblical scholarship.  But, there is more.  We need more than a final authority.  We need more than the dus-ti matrix.  We need a final pivot point.  A pivot point, as used in business, is (you only need to understand that a pivot point is an indicator):

A technical indicator derived by calculating the numerical average of a particular stock’s high, low and closing prices.

Furthermore, note the following Investopedia Commentary (you only need to understand that a pivot point sets boundaries):

The pivot point is used as a predictive indicator. If the following day’s market price falls below the pivot point, it may be used as a new resistance level. Conversely, if the market price rises above the pivot point, it may act as the new support level.

As we said above, a pivot point sets boundaries.  It is necessary to have something that sets boundaries for what constitutes the Scriptures and, as in business, these boundaries are potentially dynamic; that is, they may change.  Don’t let that word “change” make you nervous; read on.

The final pivot point for the believer is the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible.  This tells us that the Dus-ti Matrix (see above) involves use of the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible.  As a pivot point, the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible indicates what the Lord wants us to think.  But, also, as a pivot point, the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible sets potentially dynamic boundaries.  It tells us that, depending on the massive and endless flow of scholarship, the Lord may want us to change our understanding.  However:

We are not to change the text.

Let us explain what you have just read another way.  In the sport of basketball, while holding the basketball, your movement is limited to pivoting on one foot.  In doing so, you are limited as to what area you may pivot in.  There is a circle that you cannot move beyond.  In addition, this circle allows you to change your position.  Similarly, with the Scriptures, the 1769 transdialection of the King James Bible, there is a figurative circle beyond which you cannot move and, in addition, this figurative circle allows you to a limited degree to change your “belief position.”  Of course, keep in mind that such “changes in belief position” are not a matter of choice but of scholarship.  The Dus-ti Matrix defines this scholarship, which in the Bible is called “learning,” and:

The governing rules of scholarship are determined by the Bible.

Note that any changes are minor and so minor that they are almost irrelevant.  The reason they are not irrelevant is that, if there were even…say… .000001%…departure from the truth, the “pivotalness” of the Scriptures would be undermined.  Let us explain this matter of change further.  Conceptually, not actually, here is an example of a change:

A verse might contain the word “house.”  Scholarship might reveal that the house was a small house.  Was the Scripture wrong?  No.  The Scripture was simply not providing all of the information that could have been provided.  Even though the house was a small house it was still a house.

Now, we know that there will be some who will object to any version of the Scripture that is not perfectly factual.  First, we do not acknowledge that this is the case with the 1769 Bible but, even if it were, the believers final authority, the Dus-ti Matrix, would compensate for factual deficit of which one was unaware.  Later, if they became aware of the factual deficit, they would, of course, have to take action to insure that the pivotalness of the Scriptures were not undermined.  Note that this does not necessarily mean that one would have to reject the 1769 Bible since any factual deficit could be part of a literary device that allows the inclusion of factual deficit.  Here’s an example:

Joe won the baseball game with his home run then spread his wings and flew around the baseball diamond.

The statement above uses the literary device of metaphor.  The metaphor is technically false because Joe didn’t have wings and Joe didn’t fly.  However, it is a rule of common discourse that one is permitted to use such falsehoods.

Now, getting back to our main point, note that the Lord may want us, in understanding and understanding only, to move to the Pure Cambridge Edition.  But, we are not to move to the text of the Pure Cambridge Edition until biblical principles of authentication and historicity are satisfied, which may take a lifetime.  Now, if it were proven that the Pure Cambridge Edition were exclusively correct, for factual purposes we would have to adopt the understanding of the Cambridge text.  However, correctness exclusivity is not enough to make a textual switch from one transdialection to another.  There must also be historicity.  This means that there must be majority usage; that is, the majority of users of the Scriptures would first have to be using the Pure Cambridge Edition.  However: