Questions for bibleprotector

[FSSL]

A number of errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out to you... your self-authentication refuses to acknowledge them.

 

[bibleprotector]

A number of errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out to you... your self-authentication refuses to acknowledge them.

No, there have not been. Your claim is bogus. We are talking about comparing my file with the previously existing printed copies, of which you will find that there are no typographical errors in my file. Clearly, your claim is bogus, and your aspersions about some sort of self-serving denial is equally untrue and dishonest. You make nothing but empty allegations. It is you who refuses to make an honest examination of the facts so evidently set forth ... clearly, we are observing the spiritual rule of Acts 28:27 in operation here.

 

[rsc2a]

I understand. You did copy-editing and did not keep record of your edits.

Whatever that source was... you will not reveal. It had too many errors to make notations and there were all kinds of errors.

You just expect everyone to trust your copy-editing of 12,143 words is perfect.

You mean the non-error errors of a perfect translation that is imperfect?

 

[bibleprotector]

You mean the non-error errors of a perfect translation that is imperfect?

You appear to be playing fast and loose with the truth.

There are five areas of inquiry.

1. The perfection of Scripture.
2. The perfection of a text/version/readings.
3. The perfection of a translation.
4. The perfection of an Edition.
5. The perfection of typesetting/copy-editing.

We are talking about the fifth area. It is dishonest to apply your opinions about the third area and apply that somehow to the fifth.

 

[rsc2a]

I know. According to your made up categories and made up definitions, I'm a liar. Probably a scorner too.

Good thing we have a self appointed Apostle to set things to rights.

 

[Ransom]

That is an absurdly false statement. I did copy editing based on many files and consulting many sources. There are no errata to record because the various typographical errors in all sources were eliminated by cross examination of each other.

No typographical errors, except for all the typographical errors.

Geez, don't you ever get weary of having to churn out all this doublespeak?

 

[bibleprotector]

No typographical errors, except for all the typographical errors.

You want to misread and speak contrary, but as I said, there's no typographical errors where they have all been eliminated. What madness it is, that want to hold to the very opposite regardless of facts, good information and propriety.

 

[Ransom]

You want to misread and speak contrary, but as I said, there's no typographical errors where they have all been eliminated. What madness it is, that want to hold to the very opposite regardless of facts, good information and propriety.

And now we're back to that other question you refused to answer. Why did you have to eliminate all those typographical errors? Why couldn't God providentially protect his inerrant Word from all those errors?

 

[subllibrm]

You want to misread and speak contrary, but as I said, there's no typographical errors where they have all been eliminated. What madness it is, that want to hold to the very opposite regardless of facts, good information and propriety.

And now we're back to that other question you refused to answer. Why did you have to eliminate all those typographical errors? Why couldn't God providentially protect his inerrant Word from all those errors?

He did. He had BP fix them.

Why it took 400 years for perfection to reach true perfection I don't know. Apostle is above my pay grade.

 

[Ransom]

Why it took 400 years for perfection to reach true perfection I don't know. Apostle is above my pay grade.

Not to mention the nearly 1600 years of perfection before that, which also needed to be perfected.

Which makes the alleged "P"CE, perfected perfected perfection.

Which is pretty perfect. Until the Purer Cambridge Edition comes along.

(Which reminds me: There used to be a time when an actual Real Argument in favour of the KJV was that it said "Holy Bible" on the cover, unlike some versions, like the NASB, which just used their title.  I guess that if it doesn't say "Holy" on the label, we can't really know it's holy, or something. Anyway, I've always wanted to redo the dust jacket on my NIV so it reads "Holier Bible," just to show 'em.)

 

[bgwilkinson]

You want to misread and speak contrary, but as I said, there's no typographical errors where they have all been eliminated. What madness it is, that want to hold to the very opposite regardless of facts, good information and propriety.

And now we're back to that other question you refused to answer. Why did you have to eliminate all those typographical errors? Why couldn't God providentially protect his inerrant Word from all those errors?

He did. He had BP fix them.

Why it took 400 years for perfection to reach true perfection I don't know. Apostle is above my pay grade.

We could call the PCE triple inspired

 

[Steven Avery]

And now we're back to that other question you refused to answer. Why did you have to eliminate all those typographical errors? Why couldn't God providentially protect his inerrant Word from all those errors?

This is the same dumb question that the skeptics ask about the Bible edition variations in general, arguing against the Bible as the word of God. 

 

[Ransom]

This is the same dumb question that the skeptics ask about the Bible edition variations in general, arguing against the Bible as the word of God. 

The fact that you claim it's a dumb question, but don't have an answer to offer (dumb or otherwise), speaks volumes about you, Avery.

 

[Steven Avery]

The fact that you claim it's a dumb question, but don't have an answer to offer (dumb or otherwise), speaks volumes about you, Avery.

Spoken by Scott like a true unbeliever skeptic, about the variants in the NT:

"Why couldn't God providentially protect his inerrant Word from all those errors?"

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Still no answer, eh, Avery? I rest my case.