What is Providential Preservation and where is it found in the Scriptures?

[bibleprotector]

The Scripture, God's Word, was perfect since it was first inspired.

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation.

"exact text...accurate translation"

These are intrinsically different things.

Yes, that is why I said both.

 

[bibleprotector]

Miles was referring to the Rheims NT.

Much of Translators to the Reader is devoted to a defense of their work against the calumnations of the English Catholic translators of the Rheims NT.

One of their criticisms of the Rheims was the way that the Catholics muddied the meaning by using obscure words not familiar to English readers, however they were accurate in using those words but they were not understandable much like some translations in use today.

Actually, Miles was referring to men of his profession, i.e. Protestants.

 

[rsc2a]

The Scripture, God's Word, was perfect since it was first inspired.

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation.

"exact text...accurate translation"

These are intrinsically different things.

Yes, that is why I said both.

You explicitly equated them.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Miles was referring to the Rheims NT.

Much of Translators to the Reader is devoted to a defense of their work against the calumnations of the English Catholic translators of the Rheims NT.

One of their criticisms of the Rheims was the way that the Catholics muddied the meaning by using obscure words not familiar to English readers, however they were accurate in using those words but they were not understandable much like some translations in use today.

Actually, Miles was referring to men of his profession, i.e. Protestants.

The preface is filled with references to Catholics and their version.

The word Calumnation is right out of the Rheims and Miles was throwing it back in their faces.

Miles says,  "Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put ‘washing’ for ‘baptism’, and ‘congregation’ instead of ‘church’: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their ‘azymes’, ‘tunik’, ‘rational’, ‘holocausts’, ‘prepuce’, ‘pasche’, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

Now they had a complete copy of the Rheims 1582 of this I am sure.

The OT which was done in Douay was not completed in time for them to use as a reference.

But the Rheims of 1582 was readily available in the form shown below.

In England the Protestant William Fulke ironically popularized the Douay Rheims bible through his collation of the Rheims New Testament and annotations in parallel columns alongside the 1572 Protestant Bishops' Bible.

Here is a link to see for yourself
A Defense of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue, against the Manifold Cavils, Frivolous Quarrels, and Impudent Slanders of Gregory Martin, one of the Readers of Popish Divinity, in the Traitorous Seminary of Rheims (London, 1583)

https://archive.org/details/FulkeNewTestamentConfutation1589

https://archive.org/stream/defenceofsincere00fulkrich#page/n0/mode/2up

Gregory Martin was the man chiefly responsible for the Rheims of 1582 the very year in which he died.

I think we can be sure he never got to read Fulkes Rheims-Bishop's NT.

William Reynolds was one of the translators helping Martin with the Rheims.

John Reynolds, Williams brother was one of the translators of the KJV.

The history of 16 century England is fascinating.

 

[bibleprotector]

You explicitly equated them.

No I didn't, and I never have.

 

[rsc2a]

You explicitly equated them.

No I didn't, and I never have.

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation. - bible"protector"

 

[bibleprotector]

One of their criticisms of the Rheims was the way that the Catholics muddied the meaning by using obscure words not familiar to English readers, however they were accurate in using those words but they were not understandable much like some translations in use today.

This is an incorrect leap, because you are implying that the KJB uses deliberately latinate obscure phraseology in context of current modern parameters.

 

[bibleprotector]

The preface is filled with references to Catholics and their version.

No one is denying that.

 

[bibleprotector]

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation. - bible"protector"

Do you know what ellipsis, zeugma and aposiopesis are? Knowledge of these things will help you understand how to interpret grammar, in the case of my sentence, the construct of ellipsis. The KJB is just an exact text [CONCEPT ONE] and [implied "just an"] accurate translation [CONCEPT TWO]. Hope this clarifies it.

 

[rsc2a]

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation. - bible"protector"

Do you know what ellipsis, zeugma and aposiopesis are? Knowledge of these things will help you understand how to interpret grammar, in the case of my sentence, the construct of ellipsis. The KJB is just an exact text [CONCEPT ONE] and [implied "just an"] accurate translation [CONCEPT TWO]. Hope this clarifies it.

And, I repeat, those two things are fundamentally different concepts.

 

[bibleprotector]

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation. - bible"protector"

Do you know what ellipsis, zeugma and aposiopesis are? Knowledge of these things will help you understand how to interpret grammar, in the case of my sentence, the construct of ellipsis. The KJB is just an exact text [CONCEPT ONE] and [implied "just an"] accurate translation [CONCEPT TWO]. Hope this clarifies it.

And, I repeat, those two things are fundamentally different concepts.

And the KJB gets both its text and its translation correct. These two things cannot be entirely divorced from each other, however, in that the KJB men (under the providence of God) were dealing with both concurrently in making a correct English "TR" and a correct English translation simultaneously.

 

[bgwilkinson]

One of their criticisms of the Rheims was the way that the Catholics muddied the meaning by using obscure words not familiar to English readers, however they were accurate in using those words but they were not understandable much like some translations in use today.

This is an incorrect leap, because you are implying that the KJB uses deliberately latinate obscure phraseology in context of current modern parameters.

You might want to reread the part of the TTTR that I describe, on second thought, you don't want to learn anything you obviously know it all.

 

[bibleprotector]

You might want to reread the part of the TTTR that I describe, on second thought, you don't want to learn anything you obviously know it all.

What you are trying to do is say that the Roman Catholic accusations against the KJB are the same accusations you make against the KJB now.

 

[bgwilkinson]

You might want to reread the part of the TTTR that I describe, on second thought, you don't want to learn anything you obviously know it all.

What you are trying to do is say that the Roman Catholic accusations against the KJB are the same accusations you make against the KJB now.

You are really dense. What  Roman Catholic accusations are you talking about?

I did not imply that at all.

You might want to take off the KJVO blinders.

 

[bibleprotector]

You are really dense. What  Roman Catholic accusations are you talking about?

The Roman Catholic accusations that the KJB men are not qualified to give the Word of God to today.

Of course, I know your counter-argument will be to try to use the KJB translators' words to say that their own translation (like the Roman Catholic translation) does not speak to today, but practically "obscures" the sense. I think you are trying to construct the false parallel between the Romanists and the Rheims with the KJBO and the KJB today.

 

[bgwilkinson]

You are really dense. What  Roman Catholic accusations are you talking about?

The Roman Catholic accusations that the KJB men are not qualified to give the Word of God to today.

Of course, I know your counter-argument will be to try to use the KJB translators' words to say that their own translation (like the Roman Catholic translation) does not speak to today, but practically "obscures" the sense. I think you are trying to construct the false parallel between the Romanists and the Rheims with the KJBO and the KJB today.

How can you stand it living your life with KJVO blinders?

You come up with the wackiest accusations.

 

[rsc2a]

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation. - bible"protector"

Do you know what ellipsis, zeugma and aposiopesis are? Knowledge of these things will help you understand how to interpret grammar, in the case of my sentence, the construct of ellipsis. The KJB is just an exact text [CONCEPT ONE] and [implied "just an"] accurate translation [CONCEPT TWO]. Hope this clarifies it.

And, I repeat, those two things are fundamentally different concepts.

And the KJB gets both its text and its translation correct. These two things cannot be entirely divorced from each other, however, in that the KJB men (under the providence of God) were dealing with both concurrently in making a correct English "TR" and a correct English translation simultaneously.

Then to say it is an "exact text" is meaningless. The NIV, the NASB, and the Message are, likewise, "exact texts" because their text is correct by their own standard. Sure, the King Jimmy says exactly what the King Jimmy says (except for all those pesky differences in the various KJVs). You could say the same thing about Horton Hears a Who.

Now the issue of translation is completely different, and some errors are so obvious that anyone but a idolatrous KJVo nut can recognize them.

 

[bibleprotector]

Then to say it is an "exact text" is meaningless. The NIV, the NASB, and the Message are, likewise, "exact texts" because their text is correct by their own standard. Sure, the King Jimmy says exactly what the King Jimmy says (except for all those pesky differences in the various KJVs). You could say the same thing about Horton Hears a Who.

Now the issue of translation is completely different, and some errors are so obvious that anyone but a idolatrous KJVo nut can recognize them.

Exact Text = accurately, fully, completely and precisely the set of readings matching what was first inspired

Exact Translation = accurately, fully, completely and precisely the meaning in English of the original

 

[rsc2a]

Translation =/= "accurate, fully, completely, precise" meaning

Translating for Dummies 101

 

[FSSL]