Bibleprotector: Why include translator's preface and not the marginal notes

[FSSL]

Why have you chosen to allow the preface to stay but not the marginal notes?

 

[subllibrm]

They aren't pure enough?  ???

 

[bgwilkinson]

Miles said,
"¶ Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin, where there is great probability for each."

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgement not to be so sound in this point."

The translators sure thought margin notes were useful.

BP sets himself up as a judge over the translators.

 

[bgwilkinson]

And this, "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

BP does not agree with Miles and St. Augustine.

 

[FSSL]

Those things are said in the Preface, but not found in the text. A curious missing element.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The margin notes are an integral part of the translation, especially in places like Psa. 12:7.

They help one understand the golden pipes of the Hebrew.

 

[Steven Avery]

The margin notes are an integral part of the translation, especially in places like Psa. 12:7.
They help one understand the golden pipes of the Hebrew.

As in Isaiah 53:9 and b'motav they do tell you the technical Hebrew grammatical form, which is translated contextually into the English. This has come in quite handy when AV attackers have claimed that the Hebrew skills of the learned men, were lacking. When people have run with the technical form in English translation, they messed up their doctrine.

Steven

 

[bibleprotector]

Why have you chosen to allow the preface to stay but not the marginal notes?

What are you talking about? An ideal copy of the KJB would have both, and really, even have the Apocrypha.

As for a usable Bible, having neither notes nor preface is usual.

 

[FSSL]

Why have you chosen to allow the preface to stay but not the marginal notes?

What are you talking about? An ideal copy of the KJB would have both, and really, even have the Apocrypha.

As for a usable Bible, having neither notes nor preface is usual.

Huh? Apocrypha is ideal and notes render a Bible unusable?

Please explain!

 

[bibleprotector]

Huh? Apocrypha is ideal and notes render a Bible unusable?

Please explain!

What?

For an electronic file, just the Scripture, without notes, without Apocrypha and without Preface is practical.

In printed Bibles likewise, the Preface, notes and Apocrypha are not always or even often included. They are not necessary.

I don't know where you got the word "unusable" from.

 

[FSSL]

You said notes are not good for a "usable" Bible.

That is why I asked why they render the Bible unusable.

Why are the notes not added? You added the Preface.

 

[subllibrm]

I don't know where you got the word "unusable" from.

I am going to go with this:

As for a usable Bible, having neither notes nor preface is usual.

All that aside, you do provide the preface but not the notes. The question was why?

 

[Prin.Ciples]

I don't know where you got the word "unusable" from.

I am going to go with this:

As for a usable Bible, having neither notes nor preface is usual.

All that aside, you do provide the preface but not the notes. The question was why?

He's just trying to ignore the question by taking issue with the word "usable". It really is sad how KJVOist act like little children.

 

[bgwilkinson]

They do not have any other options as their false presuppositions are woefully weak and easily falsifiable.

When one is foolish enough to say there are no mistakes or errors in the KJV it only takes one mistake or error  to blow up the presupposition.

 

[FSSL]

Bibleprotector, have you left out the original margin notes because you think they may cause confusion with the reader?

 

[prophet]

Why have you chosen to allow the preface to stay but not the marginal notes?

What are you talking about? An ideal copy of the KJB would have both, and really, even have the Apocrypha.

As for a usable Bible, having neither notes nor preface is usual.

Amen.  Why not let the gentle reader and the still small voice consort on the meaning, rather than seek to steer him any way?

 

[prophet]

I don't know where you got the word "unusable" from.

I am going to go with this:

As for a usable Bible, having neither notes nor preface is usual.

All that aside, you do provide the preface but not the notes. The question was why?

He's just trying to ignore the question by taking issue with the word "usable". It really is sad how KJVOist act like little children.

I understood "usable" to mean the searching of Scriptures by concordance.
I use an e-file with the text isolated, but also have a file of the notes/preface/apocrypha.

 

[FSSL]

Why have you chosen to allow the preface to stay but not the marginal notes?

What are you talking about? An ideal copy of the KJB would have both, and really, even have the Apocrypha.

As for a usable Bible, having neither notes nor preface is usual.

Amen.  Why not let the gentle reader and the still small voice consort on the meaning, rather than seek to steer him any way?

An ironic "amen" when KJVOs have yet to "consort with the still small voice" with the proper understanding of Psa 12.7.

There is nothing which will upset a person's faith to have literal Hebrew/Greek readings in the margin.

Your judgment is not so sound on this point.

 

[Steven Avery]

Bibleprotector, have you left out the original margin notes because you think they may cause confusion with the reader?

My understanding it that the PCE margin notes would not be the original margin notes, they would be from the time of the PCE received text.

 

[Steven Avery]

When one is foolish enough to say there are no mistakes or errors in the KJV it only takes one mistake or error  to blow up the presupposition.

That is simply the skeptic's argument against the perfection of the Bible, applied by you to the AV.