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

[Thomas Cassidy]

Evidence of bible preservation.

1. God inspired the bible.

2. We still have the bible.

3. God is Sovereign.

Conclusion, God preserved the bible.

Simple as 1, 2, 3.

 

[rsc2a]

1. Come up with big idea.
2. ? ? ?
3. Profit!

 

[subllibrm]

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.

Which one? You are the one claiming to know which iteration is the "exact(est)" of them all. The fact that you claim one better than another (or all the others) betrays the very idea of an "exact" text. Remember rule number one of KJVO: "those which are not the same are different".

 

[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.

Which one? You are the one claiming to know which iteration is the "exact(est)" of them all. The fact that you claim one better than another (or all the others) betrays the very idea of an "exact" text. Remember rule number one of KJVO: "those which are not the same are different".

The KJB is a version, a set of readings, an exact Text. The word "Text" being used in regards to the representation of readings.

It is incorrect to then attempt to apply that meaning to the other use of the word "text", meaning the words in English.

It is evident that, say, 1 John 5:7 is a READING which is present in the KJB. Therefore, the argument given concerning "which one" is incorrect.

 

[subllibrm]

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.

Which one? You are the one claiming to know which iteration is the "exact(est)" of them all. The fact that you claim one better than another (or all the others) betrays the very idea of an "exact" text. Remember rule number one of KJVO: "those which are not the same are different".

The KJB is a version, a set of readings, an exact Text. The word "Text" being used in regards to the representation of readings.

It is incorrect to then attempt to apply that meaning to the other use of the word "text", meaning the words in English.

It is evident that, say, 1 John 5:7 is a READING which is present in the KJB. Therefore, the argument given concerning "which one" is incorrect.

So all of them are equally good? Then what exactly is the point of your efforts?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=subllibrm ]So all of them are equally good? Then what exactly is the point of your efforts?[/quote]

Because things that are different are not the...

...oh, nevermind.

 

[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.

Which one? You are the one claiming to know which iteration is the "exact(est)" of them all. The fact that you claim one better than another (or all the others) betrays the very idea of an "exact" text. Remember rule number one of KJVO: "those which are not the same are different".

The KJB is a version, a set of readings, an exact Text. The word "Text" being used in regards to the representation of readings.

It is incorrect to then attempt to apply that meaning to the other use of the word "text", meaning the words in English.

It is evident that, say, 1 John 5:7 is a READING which is present in the KJB. Therefore, the argument given concerning "which one" is incorrect.

So all of them are equally good? Then what exactly is the point of your efforts?

1. All Scripture is not equally good to false scriptures like the Koran or book of Mormon. The Bible is fully good.

2. Not all versions and translations are equally good, for accuracy and exactness. The KJB is fully good.

3. Not all editions of the KJB are equally good, for precision and editorial preciseness. The PCE is fully good.

Do not confuse the various editions of the KJB with the fact that one KJB (one version and translation) has appeared in various editions.

 

[logos1560]

Do not confuse the various editions of the KJB with the fact that one KJB (one version and translation) has appeared in various editions.

Where is your sound documented evidence that establishes your claim to be a fact rather than your unsubstantiated opinion?

 

[bibleprotector]

Do not confuse the various editions of the KJB with the fact that one KJB (one version and translation) has appeared in various editions.

Where is your sound documented evidence that establishes your claim to be a fact rather than your unsubstantiated opinion?

What is the spiritual motive behind you asking what may be loaded questions?

 

[bgwilkinson]

BP is self authenticating.

 

[logos1560]

Do not confuse the various editions of the KJB with the fact that one KJB (one version and translation) has appeared in various editions.

Where is your sound documented evidence that establishes your claim to be a fact rather than your unsubstantiated opinion?

What is the spiritual motive behind you asking what may be loaded questions?

My proper, valid question based on your burden of proof to back up your own positive claim for the KJV that you yourself stated is not a "loaded" question.

If your claim was supposedly "fact" as you suggested, you should want to provide the actual sound evidence that would establish it as such.  Otherwise, readers of this forum may conclude that you were improperly trying to pass off your personal biased opinion as supposedly being "fact" when it was not.

 

[bibleprotector]

My proper, valid question based on your burden of proof to back up your own positive claim for the KJV that you yourself stated is not a "loaded" question.

If your claim was supposedly "fact" as you suggested, you should want to provide the actual sound evidence that would establish it as such.  Otherwise, readers of this forum may conclude that you were improperly trying to pass off your personal biased opinion as supposedly being "fact" when it was not.

I may now give a rhetorical yes, as my question was making the correct assessment, since you are now concerned that my question was loaded, and are also trying to defend that yours was not.

Readers of this forum would have read you asking a question without any information attached to it, other than to just question the question asked by me. Why not actually attempt to supply genuine, solid information rather than make implications by merely expressing doubt in roundabout ways?

The onus is on you to question academia, scholarship and 403 years of common knowledge. Are we really seeing you about to make the argument that the King James Bible is actually a vast number of different versions and translations, having been foisted upon an unsuspecting public and duping everyone to the monarch of England who had periodically issued royal letters patent regarding its publication?

 

[Ransom]

The onus is on you to question academia, scholarship and 403 years of common knowledge.

Yes, well, since you tout yourself as some sort of authority, he's questioning authority. Authority's inability to give a straight answer speaks volumes about how hollow your sanctimonious finger-wagging really is.

 

[subllibrm]

Do not confuse the various editions of the KJB with the fact that one KJB (one version and translation) has appeared in various editions.

Don't worry your little head about that, I am confused enough by this sentence.  ???

 

[Ransom]

Do not confuse the various editions of the KJB with the fact that one KJB (one version and translation) has appeared in various editions.

Translation: Don't confuse the various editions of the KJV with the various editions of the KJV. They're, like, totally obviously not the same thing.

 

[bibleprotector]

Do not confuse the various editions of the KJB with the fact that one KJB (one version and translation) has appeared in various editions.

Translation: Don't confuse the various editions of the KJV with the various editions of the KJV. They're, like, totally obviously not the same thing.

Real translation: There is one King James Bible which has been printed and published many times in many editions.

 

[subllibrm]

Do not confuse the various editions of the KJB with the fact that one KJB (one version and translation) has appeared in various editions.

Translation: Don't confuse the various editions of the KJV with the various editions of the KJV. They're, like, totally obviously not the same thing.

Real translation: There is one King James Bible which has been printed and published many times in many editions.

"Things that are different are not the same."

Now where have i heard that before?  :-\

 

[rsc2a]

Did you hear it EXACTLY that way? 

 

[Ransom]

Real translation: There is one King James Bible which has been printed and published many times in many editions.

So  the KJV has been published in various editions, but there aren't various editions of the KJV.

I understand. Or not. Doesn't matter, since they're the same thing.

 

[SAWBONES]

So  the KJV has been published in various editions, but there aren't various editions of the KJV.

When KJVOists want to assert the supposed supremacy of the KJV, then all KJV editions are essentially the same, and whatever differences there may be between editions "really don't matter".

When the "PCE" KJVOists (all three of them) want to assert the supremacy and perfection of the "PCE" over all other forms of the KJV, then every teensy-weensy difference is oh-so-very important.

Unequal weights and measures, as usual.  8)