Acceptable reasoning concerning the KJV

[logos1560]

And anyway, the KJV was already the widely accepted, tried and true version it was by 1881 so critiquing the ladder against the one that came before it is acceptable reasoning, it is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be if you tried to defend the New Version's readings for their own sake over the KJV's.

Anyway, the 1560 Geneva Bible was already the widely accepted, read, loved, believed, tried and true English version before 1611 so critiquing the ladder [the KJV] against the one that came before it should be acceptable reasoning according to your own stated reasoning, UGC. The Scriptures had been translated into English many years before 1611.

Will KJV-only advocates accept trying or critiquing the KJV by the widely-accepted, tried and true 1560 Geneva Bible that came before it.

UGC, does a consistent, just application of your own statement assert that it would be circular reasoning to try to defend a new version's readings in 1611 for their own sake over the Geneva Bible's? Will you apply your own stated reasoning consistently and justly?

When compared to the same standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, there are some (likely many) places where the 1560 Geneva Bible can soundly be considered better, clearer, and more accurate than the 1611 KJV is.

How many hundreds or likely thousands of changes and revisions did the Church of England men in 1611 make to the widely-accepted 1560 Geneva Bible?

Did the Church of England makers of the KJV make the same-type changes to the 1560 Geneva Bible that the NKJV translators made to the NKJV?

 

[logos1560]

Is the 1560 Geneva Bible no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV as Gail Riplinger suggested?

Is the 1560 Geneva Bible "practically identical" to the KJV in all its renderings?

Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566). Riplinger asserted that “generally speaking, the early English Bibles are the same” (p. 130; Hidden History, p. 37). Riplinger asserted that “the words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 859). Riplinger maintained that “both the Bishops’ and the KJV are literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text and show all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288). Riplinger even indicated that those previous early English Bibles “were no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJB” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 59). Riplinger asserted that the Geneva “follows the traditional text underlying the King James Version” (Which Bible Is God‘s Word, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot [which was an edition of the Geneva Bible] as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). Riplinger claimed: “According to the rules of translation, the [KJV] translators’ final authority was early English Bibles, particularly the Bishops’” (Hidden History, p. 41).

Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82). Along with some others, Ruckman wrote: “I recommend … the Geneva Bible” (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). Ruckman asserted that “we will not condemn them” [referring to pre-1611 English Bibles including the Geneva Bible] (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman maintained that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva “have substantially the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Bible” (Ibid.). Ruckman described the Geneva Bible as “a revision of Tyndale” and “the most anti-Catholic translation to date” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 158, 157). Ruckman maintained that John Roger’s work in the Matthew’s Bible “is the basis for the Geneva Bible of the Puritans” (p. 155).

Would Peter Ruckman accept all the renderings in the Geneva Bible since he recommended it?

 

[logos1560]

"acceptable" comparison of the changes that the KJV made to the widely-accepted 1560 Geneva Bible in the first fourteen chapters of Acts

Acts 1:3 that he had suffered (1560 Geneva Bible) his passion (1611 KJV)

Acts 1:20 charge (1560 Geneva Bible) bishopric (1611 KJV)

Acts 1:22 be made (1560 Geneva Bible) be ordained (1611 KJV)

Acts 2:8 language (1560 Geneva Bible) tongue (1611 KJV)

Acts 3:12 or godliness (1560 Geneva Bible) or holiness (1611 KJV)

Acts 3:17 I know (1560 Geneva Bible) I wot (1611 KJV)

Acts 5:21 all the elders (1560 Geneva Bible) all the senate (1611 KJV)

Acts 7:11 famine (1560 Geneva Bible) dearth (1611 KJV)

Acts 7:17 near (1560 Geneva Bible) nigh (1611 KJV)

Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (1560 Geneva Bible) exceeding fair (1611 KJV)

Acts 7:28 congregation in the wilderness (1560 Geneva Bible) church in the wilderness (1611 KJV)

Acts 7:40 know not (1560 Geneva Bible) wot not (1611 KJV)

Acts 8:27 to worship (1560 Geneva Bible) for to worship (1611 KJV)

Acts 12:4 the Passover (1560 Geneva Bible) Easter (1611 KJV)

Acts 12:5 but earnest prayer was made (1560 Geneva Bible) but prayer was made without ceasing (1611 KJV)

Acts 12:9 knew not (1560 Geneva Bible) wist not (1611 KJV)

Acts 13:16 hearken (1560 Geneva Bible) give audience (1611 KJV)

Acts 13:20 about four (1560 Geneva Bible) about the space of four (1611 KJV)

Acts 14:23 ordained them elders by election (1560 Geneva Bible) ordained them elders (1611 KJV)

Acts 14:23 in whom they believed (1560 Geneva Bible) on whom they believed (1611 KJV)

Acts 14:26 commended (1560 Geneva Bible) recommended (1611 KJV)

 

[AWorkInProgress]

There was only one purpose for the creation of the King James Version Holy Bible in 1611. It was not to replace the Geneva Bible, or any Holy Bible. It was to make the Holy Bible accessible to the common people. Before then, the only people who were allowed to have a Holy Bible was the Church leadership: Pope, Bishop, etc.. Others who may have been allowed were lords, the king and other nobility. The common people were discouraged from owning one due to two reasons:

1) they were not educated beyond the sixth grade, that is, if they even went to school at all. The church Bibles were in Latin which you could only learn Latin if you were educated beyond the sixth grade
2) due to their economic class: poor, they were barred from owning one. They were not even allowed to look at the one in any of the churches. It was considered a sin by the church.

The corrupt church at this time did not want the common people to own a Holy Bible because then they would see the church was lying to the people and the church considered ignorance as a way to control them. Because the services were always in Latin, the common people had no idea what the "man of God" was saying. They just had to blindly trust the "man of God". The King James Version was written for the common people who had a sixth grade level of reading and understanding. Those who could not afford one were given one for free. To say the Holy Roman Catholic Church leadership from the Pope on down were hysterically in a fit of rage is an understatement. The church condemned the 1611 King James Version as blasphemy and tried to scare the people from reading it by telling them they would go to hell, they would be kicked out of the church because the church claimed the Bible was only for the eyes of the church leadership and nobility, and the commoners were expected to just blindly trust and obey the church leadership.

There was a time when the average person could not touch, hold, own, or even read the Holy Bible. If the people in that time period could see us today, I wonder what condemning words they would have for us when we have multiple copies of the Word of God, and we don't even read it daily, that is if we even open it at all.

 

[treasure_unseen]

There was only one purpose for the creation of the King James Version Holy Bible in 1611. It was not to replace the Geneva Bible, or any Holy Bible. It was to make the Holy Bible accessible to the common people. Before then, the only people who were allowed to have a Holy Bible was the Church leadership: Pope, Bishop, etc.. Others who may have been allowed were lords, the king and other nobility. The common people were discouraged from owning one due to two reasons:

1) they were not educated beyond the sixth grade, that is, if they even went to school at all. The church Bibles were in Latin which you could only learn Latin if you were educated beyond the sixth grade
2) due to their economic class: poor, they were barred from owning one. They were not even allowed to look at the one in any of the churches. It was considered a sin by the church.

The corrupt church at this time did not want the common people to own a Holy Bible because then they would see the church was lying to the people and the church considered ignorance as a way to control them. Because the services were always in Latin, the common people had no idea what the "man of God" was saying. They just had to blindly trust the "man of God". The King James Version was written for the common people who had a sixth grade level of reading and understanding. Those who could not afford one were given one for free. To say the Holy Roman Catholic Church leadership from the Pope on down were hysterically in a fit of rage is an understatement. The church condemned the 1611 King James Version as blasphemy and tried to scare the people from reading it by telling them they would go to hell, they would be kicked out of the church because the church claimed the Bible was only for the eyes of the church leadership and nobility, and the commoners were expected to just blindly trust and obey the church leadership.

There was a time when the average person could not touch, hold, own, or even read the Holy Bible. If the people in that time period could see us today, I wonder what condemning words they would have for us when we have multiple copies of the Word of God, and we don't even read it daily, that is if we even open it at all.

Ridiculous.

The Geneva Bible was the Bible for the common man. Not the KJV. The Geneva Bible is what started the hatred of the British monarchy (King James) and preceded the KJV by 51 years. It IS what began the pulling away of large numbers of people away from large organized false cults such as the "Church of England" to liberating doctrines such as the "Individual Priesthood of the Believer". King James wanted to enslave the masses to his doctrine and the British Crown. The religious rebels that came to America LOVED and carried Geneva Bibles.

It is ironic that you enjoy bashing the work of the Catholic Church that enslaved men and you then reject the work of the British Monarch to do the same?

The Geneva Bible was in the hands of rebels against "Church of England" and the "Catholic Church" for more than 50 years before your false claim above.

If it hadn't been for King James banning the printing of the Geneva Bible, the Geneva Bible probably would have been the Bible of choice. King James was a man who hated the Word of God.

By the way, a sixth grader can't read the 1611 KJV. It took over a 150 years before the KJV became what it has today.

 

[tmjbog]

There was only one purpose for the creation of the King James Version Holy Bible in 1611. It was not to replace the Geneva Bible, or any Holy Bible. It was to make the Holy Bible accessible to the common people. Before then, the only people who were allowed to have a Holy Bible was the Church leadership: Pope, Bishop, etc.. Others who may have been allowed were lords, the king and other nobility. The common people were discouraged from owning one due to two reasons:

1) they were not educated beyond the sixth grade, that is, if they even went to school at all. The church Bibles were in Latin which you could only learn Latin if you were educated beyond the sixth grade
2) due to their economic class: poor, they were barred from owning one. They were not even allowed to look at the one in any of the churches. It was considered a sin by the church.

The corrupt church at this time did not want the common people to own a Holy Bible because then they would see the church was lying to the people and the church considered ignorance as a way to control them. Because the services were always in Latin, the common people had no idea what the "man of God" was saying. They just had to blindly trust the "man of God". The King James Version was written for the common people who had a sixth grade level of reading and understanding. Those who could not afford one were given one for free. To say the Holy Roman Catholic Church leadership from the Pope on down were hysterically in a fit of rage is an understatement. The church condemned the 1611 King James Version as blasphemy and tried to scare the people from reading it by telling them they would go to hell, they would be kicked out of the church because the church claimed the Bible was only for the eyes of the church leadership and nobility, and the commoners were expected to just blindly trust and obey the church leadership.

There was a time when the average person could not touch, hold, own, or even read the Holy Bible. If the people in that time period could see us today, I wonder what condemning words they would have for us when we have multiple copies of the Word of God, and we don't even read it daily, that is if we even open it at all.

Latin was purged from the Church of England prior to the King James Bible. The Great Bible which the Church of England began using in 1539 was in English not Latin.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Latin was purged from the Church of England prior to the King James Bible. The Great Bible which the Church of England began using in 1539 was in English not Latin.

The KJV was/is full of Latin renderings. You can't remove Latin influence from English. It is embedded in the language. It is why we use the English name "Jesus" instead of Greek or Hebrew origins.

Still a novice.... You can't learn these things from Google for a few minutes and parroting what someone else said.

 

[tmjbog]

The KJV was/is full of Latin renderings. You can't remove Latin influence from English. It is embedded in the language. It is why we use the English name "Jesus" instead of Greek or Hebrew origins.

Still a novice.... You can't learn these things from Google for a few minutes and parroting what someone else said.

You can't remove Germanic and probably half a dozen other influences from English. But the average English speaker would be lost if you dropped them in the middle of Berlin. Being influenced by German or any other language is not the same as that language.

 

[Ransom]

There was only one purpose for the creation of the King James Version Holy Bible in 1611. It was not to replace the Geneva Bible, or any Holy Bible.

It was, in fact, for both of these reasons.

It was to replace the Geneva Bible, because James I believed that "of all, that [Bible] of Geneva is the worst." It was actually the best translation available at the time; what James objected to was not the text, but the notes, which were highly political and anti-monarchy. Though born a Roman Catholic, James was raised Protestant by strict Presbyterian tutors who often punished him severaly. He didn't like Presbyterians or Puritans, which is why he spent the duration of the Hampton Court Conference haranguing the Puritan party (and even threatened to deport them at one point). He wasn't about to endorse their Bible.

It was to replace the Bishops' Bible. The Geneva Bible was not popular with clergy. The Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1560s, Matthew Parker, was strongly anti-Calvinist and believed its notes were no nicer to bishops than James I thought they were to kings. The Bishops' Bible was intended to update the Great Bible of 1538, and also to be a more ecumenical Bible that would undermine the popularity Geneva translation. They ended up producing an inferior translation that was unpopular and obsolete by the time it was finished. The Authorized Version was to update and replace the Bishops' Bible. Richard Bancroft, the Bishop of London's instructions to the translators were that the Bishops' Bible was to be "as little altered as the truth of the original will permit."

It was to make the Holy Bible accessible to the common people.

The Holy Bible was already accessible to the common people--in the Geneva Bible. Vernacular translation was still mistrusted by the clergy, and Bancroft opposed even the Authorized Version at first, complaining that "if every man's humour were followed, there would be no end of translating." Again, his instructions were that "the old ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept"--he opposed replacing high church jargon with simpler language that anyone would understand.

Before then, the only people who were allowed to have a Holy Bible was the Church leadership: Pope, Bishop, etc..

Not so. The Geneva Bible was the first (relatively) inexpensive, mass-produced Bible that was sold directly to the public. In fact, in Scotland for a time it was required that every household buy one, if they could afford it.

1) they were not educated beyond the sixth grade, that is, if they even went to school at all. The church Bibles were in Latin which you could only learn Latin if you were educated beyond the sixth grade

The Great Bible was available to be read, in English, in every church starting in 1538.

due to their economic class: poor, they were barred from owning one. They were not even allowed to look at the one in any of the churches. It was considered a sin by the church.

Exactly wrong. The Great Bible was expressly intended for public reading. Anyone could go to church and read it for himself; or, if he could not read, hear it read to him by someone who could. Public reading of the Bible was so popular that churches had to post rules to make sure crowds didn't get too large or noisy. The availability of the Bible to anyone who wanted led to an increase in literacy.

Additionally, when the Bishops' Bible was published, every bishop was required to have a copy so that his servants or people who came to the door could read it.

The corrupt church at this time did not want the common people to own a Holy Bible because then they would see the church was lying to the people . . . they would be kicked out of the church because the church claimed the Bible was only for the eyes of the church leadership and nobility, and the commoners were expected to just blindly trust and obey the church leadership.

You have no clue of the state of religion in England at the time of the translation of the Authorized Version, do you? England was a Protestant country starting with the accession of Edward VI in 1547, excepting the five-year reign of his sister Mary from 1553-58. The church wasn't spitting threats and murder at people over the KJV. They were the ones who produced the KJV.

 

[tmjbog]

It was, in fact, for both of these reasons.

It was to replace the Geneva Bible, because he believed that "of all, that [Bible] of Geneva is the worst." It was actually the best translation available at the time; what James objected to was not the text, but the notes, which were highly political and anti-monarchy. Though born a Roman Catholic, James was raised Protestant by strict Presbyterian tutors who often punished him severaly. He didn't like Presbyterians or Puritans, which is why he spent the duration of the Hampton Court Conference haranguing the Puritan party (and even threatened to deport them at one point). He wasn't about to endorse their Bible.

It was to replace the Bishops' Bible. The Geneva Bible was not popular with clergy. The Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1560s, Matthew Parker, was strongly anti-Calvinist and believed its notes were no nicer to bishops than James I thought they were to kings. The Bishops' Bible was intended to update the Great Bible of 1538, and also to be a more ecumenical Bible that would undermine the popularity Geneva translation. They ended up producing an inferior translation that was unpopular and obsolete by the time it was finished. The Authorized Version was to update and replace the Bishops' Bible. Richard Bancroft, the Bishop of London's instructions to the translators were that the Bishops' Bible was to be "as little altered as the truth of the original will permit."



The Holy Bible was already accessible to the common people--in the Geneva Bible. Vernacular translation was still mistrusted by the clergy, and Bancroft opposed even the Authorized Version at first, complaining that "if every man's humour were followed, there would be no end of translating." Again, his instructions were that "the old ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept"--he opposed replacing high church jargon with simpler language that anyone would understand.



Not so. The Geneva Bible was the first (relatively) inexpensive, mass-produced Bible that was sold directly to the public. In fact, in Scotland for a time it was required that every household buy one, if they could afford it.



The Great Bible was available to be read, in English, in every church starting in 1538.



Exactly wrong. The Great Bible was expressly intended for public reading. Anyone could go to church and read it for himself; or, if he could not read, hear it read to him by someone who could. Public reading of the Bible was so popular that churches had to post rules to make sure crowds didn't get too large or noisy. The availability of the Bible to anyone who wanted led to an increase in literacy.

Additionally, when the Bishops' Bible was published, every bishop was required to have a copy so that his servants or people who came to the door could read it.



You have no clue of the state of religion in England at the time of the translation of the Authorized Version, do you? England was a Protestant country starting with the accession of Edward VI in 1547, excepting the five-year reign of his sister Mary from 1553-58. The church wasn't spitting threats and murder at people over the KJV. They were the ones who produced the KJV.

There you go again destroying all of Treasure's fantasies with facts. How is he ever going to fill the pew at the Church of the Disgruntled if you keep arguing with facts?

 

[treasure_unseen]

It was, in fact, for both of these reasons.

It was to replace the Geneva Bible, because James I believed that "of all, that [Bible] of Geneva is the worst." It was actually the best translation available at the time; what James objected to was not the text, but the notes,

And you ridiculously believe what he said? He was a chronic liar and enemy of God. The proof is the notes found in the KJV that largely matched what the Geneva had already done.

Despot King James hated that the Geneva translated the Scripture in a manner that countered the narrative that he was the ruler of every man under God.

 

[Ransom]

And you ridiculously believe what he said?

Oh, good grief. Get lost, contrarian moonbat.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Oh, good grief. Get lost, contrarian moonbat.

Well you did. What he said was a "means to an end".

 

[AWorkInProgress]

It was, in fact, for both of these reasons.

It was to replace the Geneva Bible, because James I believed that "of all, that [Bible] of Geneva is the worst." It was actually the best translation available at the time; what James objected to was not the text, but the notes, which were highly political and anti-monarchy. Though born a Roman Catholic, James was raised Protestant by strict Presbyterian tutors who often punished him severaly. He didn't like Presbyterians or Puritans, which is why he spent the duration of the Hampton Court Conference haranguing the Puritan party (and even threatened to deport them at one point). He wasn't about to endorse their Bible.

It was to replace the Bishops' Bible. The Geneva Bible was not popular with clergy. The Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1560s, Matthew Parker, was strongly anti-Calvinist and believed its notes were no nicer to bishops than James I thought they were to kings. The Bishops' Bible was intended to update the Great Bible of 1538, and also to be a more ecumenical Bible that would undermine the popularity Geneva translation. They ended up producing an inferior translation that was unpopular and obsolete by the time it was finished. The Authorized Version was to update and replace the Bishops' Bible. Richard Bancroft, the Bishop of London's instructions to the translators were that the Bishops' Bible was to be "as little altered as the truth of the original will permit."



The Holy Bible was already accessible to the common people--in the Geneva Bible. Vernacular translation was still mistrusted by the clergy, and Bancroft opposed even the Authorized Version at first, complaining that "if every man's humour were followed, there would be no end of translating." Again, his instructions were that "the old ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept"--he opposed replacing high church jargon with simpler language that anyone would understand.



Not so. The Geneva Bible was the first (relatively) inexpensive, mass-produced Bible that was sold directly to the public. In fact, in Scotland for a time it was required that every household buy one, if they could afford it.



The Great Bible was available to be read, in English, in every church starting in 1538.



Exactly wrong. The Great Bible was expressly intended for public reading. Anyone could go to church and read it for himself; or, if he could not read, hear it read to him by someone who could. Public reading of the Bible was so popular that churches had to post rules to make sure crowds didn't get too large or noisy. The availability of the Bible to anyone who wanted led to an increase in literacy.

Additionally, when the Bishops' Bible was published, every bishop was required to have a copy so that his servants or people who came to the door could read it.



You have no clue of the state of religion in England at the time of the translation of the Authorized Version, do you? England was a Protestant country starting with the accession of Edward VI in 1547, excepting the five-year reign of his sister Mary from 1553-58. The church wasn't spitting threats and murder at people over the KJV. They were the ones who produced the KJV.

Obviously, you don't have a clue either. May I suggest you get a good history text book that was not created by a Republican/Conservative or Democrat/Liberal. That is the only way you will have a true grasp of history. Contrary to what you may wish to believe, I do know what the state of religion was in the late 1500's and early1600's. Find yourself an old history textbook from maybe the 1930's to 1970's: before education became so politicized to where history became whatever the prevailing party decreed. Maybe check Abe Books to see if you can purchase a British History textbook.

I am a strong believer that a person is never too old to learn something new.

Good luck!

 

[treasure_unseen]

Obviously, you don't have a clue either. May I suggest you get a good history text book that was not created by a Republican/Conservative or Democrat/Liberal. That is the only way you will have a true grasp of history. Contrary to what you may wish to believe, I do know what the state of religion was in the late 1500's and early1600's. Find yourself an old history textbook from maybe the 1930's to 1970's: before education became so politicized to where history became whatever the prevailing party decreed. Maybe check Abe Books to see if you can purchase a British History textbook.

Loyal British servant? How can you possibly make such a silly argument as to reject historical fact. Nothing Ransom said was wrong except for what I pointed out.

I am a strong believer that a person is never too old to learn something new.

Good luck!

Please include yourself in that remark...... "Oh wise one".

You didn't point out a single thing that you claimed was wrong with an alternative reference to fact. Why don't you share that British history book you've obviously learned from? I'm betting you don't really have one yourself.

 

[Ransom]

Well you did. What he said was a "means to an end".

"Contrarian moonbat" credentials confirmed.

It's easy for you to support my assertions, isn't it?

 

[Ransom]

Obviously, you don't have a clue either. May I suggest you get a good history text book that was not created by a Republican/Conservative or Democrat/Liberal.

My sources for the history of the English Bible include scholarly works such as The Bible in English by David Daniell, as well as his edition of Tyndale's New Testament; Alister McGrath's history of the King James Bible, In the Beginning; F. F. Bruce's The English Bible; and various other sources, including Adam Nicolson and B. F. Westcott.

I rely primarily on English authors for English church history, in other words. But perhaps you can let me know which of them are the "Republican/Conservatives" or "Democrat/Liberals," as I don't see why American political parties would allow English citizens join them. Maybe it's just because I don't have a clue?

Find yourself an old history textbook from maybe the 1930's to 1970's

Perhaps you could recommend some, as I, unfortunately, have thus far only relied on professional historians and theologians.

LOL!

 

[Ransom]

Nothing Ransom said was wrong except for what I pointed out.

And that wasn't wrong, either, moonbat. I quoted James' on-the-record remarks about the Geneva Bible and responded to that. I wasn't commenting on his honesty. You, not I, changed the subject.

And you ridiculously believe what he said?

As always, there you go again, assuming moral or mental deficiency merely for not having the common decency of believing you.

 

[treasure_unseen]

"Contrarian moonbat" credentials confirmed.

It's easy for you to support my assertions, isn't it?

I agree when you're right. I don't when you're not. You do the same when you think the same of me. Well... that is only half right. I don't know that you've ever agreed with me much. Not even when I say that Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

[treasure_unseen]

And that wasn't wrong, either, moonbat. I quoted James' on-the-record remarks about the Geneva Bible and responded to that. I wasn't commenting on his honesty. You, not I, changed the subject.

You commented as if you believed it. You made no such distinction in reference to the "notes". Either that or you left out the quotes.

As always, there you go again, assuming moral or mental deficiency merely for not having the common decency of believing you.

You're mistake from above.