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

[Ransom]

Things that are different are not different things!

 

[bibleprotector]

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

What? The whole point is that there are different editions, editions which are still exhibiting the same readings and same translation called the King James Version.

 

[Ransom]

And now, we juxtapose . . .

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

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

What?

Yes, it would appear that you are the one who is confused, mainly because your arguments are ridiculous and rely heavily on moronic word parsing.

 

[bibleprotector]

Yes, it would appear that you are the one who is confused, mainly because your arguments are ridiculous and rely heavily on moronic word parsing.

I cannot tell if your misreading is deliberate or not. It seems deliberate.

 

[Ransom]

I cannot tell if your misreading is deliberate or not. It seems deliberate.

It is you who wrote:

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

If they are not to be confused, that means that there is a distinction between them.

I cannot tell whether your muddleheadedness is deliberate or not. It seems as though you come by it honestly.

 

[bibleprotector]

I cannot tell if your misreading is deliberate or not. It seems deliberate.

It is you who wrote:

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

If they are not to be confused, that means that there is a distinction between them.

I cannot tell whether your muddleheadedness is deliberate or not. It seems as though you come by it honestly.

You are implying a muddling where it is very clear, that is:

1. There is a version and translation called the King James Bible.

Which is not the same idea as

2. There are many editions of that same said version and translation.

So, the version and translation are the SAME in the editions; but the IDEA of a version and translation different to another version and translation IS NOT THE SAME AS differences among KJB editions.

It's a real indictment on those opposite in the debate that they seem to look for opportunities to twist what is being said.

 

[Ransom]

So, basically, you're bloviating in excess about something that should be obvious to anyone with a couple of functioning brain cells.

Tells us volumes about what the KJV-only crowd thinks of the rest of us mere mortals.

 

[logos1560]

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

What? The whole point is that there are different editions, editions which are still exhibiting the same readings and same translation called the King James Version.

You have not demonstrated that your biased opinion is actually factually correct.

The 1611 edition of the KJV kept or followed the incorrect reading or rendering of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible in some places where later editions were changed based on a later editor or printer's comparison to the original language texts in agreement with the reading or rendering in the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The New Testament of most pre-1769 editions of the KJV generally follow an edition of Beza's Greek text while the 1769 edition and many post-1769 editions of the KJV were revised to reflect some readings in the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Greek text.

Simon Wong wrote: “Blayney assumed wrongly that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Robert Stephanus (or Estienne) edition of the Textus Receptus tradition, whereas it was from the later editions of Beza (most likely that of 1598).  Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7).  Concerning the italics in the 1769, Jack Countryman also reported or quoted from some source the following:  “Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; accordingly the current standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Treasure of God‘s Word, p. 75).  For possible examples of textually-based changes in italics, see Mark 8:14, John 8:6, Acts 1:4, Acts 26:3, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 19:14, and Revelation 19:18. 

The many differences between the use of "LORD" [Jehovah] and "Lord" [Adonai] in many KJV editions could reflect following a different textual source or the textual notes or information in a different source than that followed in other editions.

 

[bibleprotector]

The 1611 edition of the KJV kept or followed the incorrect reading or rendering of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible in some places where later editions were changed based on a later editor or printer's comparison to the original language texts in agreement with the reading or rendering in the 1560 Geneva Bible.

This can be easily identified as a problem with the printers of 1611, but does not amount to changing the readings and/or translation.

The New Testament of most pre-1769 editions of the KJV generally follow an edition of Beza's Greek text while the 1769 edition and many post-1769 editions of the KJV were revised to reflect some readings in the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Greek text.

That is misleading, as that only reflected additional marginal notes, which does not affect the Scripture text; and whether a word was in italics or roman type, which does not actually change whether a word is present or not. This does not at all lead to any reading and/or translation change.

The many differences between the use of "LORD" [Jehovah] and "Lord" [Adonai] in many KJV editions could reflect following a different textual source or the textual notes or information in a different source than that followed in other editions.

In fact, numerous examples of variations between Lord/LORD seem to have arisen by accident. For example, I examined a poorly printed edition which came out soon after the founding of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and in it I not only quite easily spotted mistakes, but quite some haphazardness in their use of LORD/Lord.

Further, it is merely speculation to say that "many KJV editions could reflect following a different textual source" because no significant amounts of variations have been offered in this regard in the Hebrew from textual critical sources. I understand that the most significant alterations in the OT textual apparatus came in from the 20th century.

What we are examining in the above "doubt raking" hypothetical is the classic "If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there’d be no work for tinkers’ hands." The pedantic logos1560 desperately wants there to be speculative possibly likely probability which may reflect his biased, prejudicial view of the King James Version's internal editorial history, but he has nothing solid except his certain doubt.

An example like the "Amen" at the end of Ephesians is much more likely a printing error than a change in reading.

 

[Steven Avery]

Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7).

You put this in bold which may give the false impression that it is your argument.  In fact, you never state what source texts, or in this case maybe it is referring to italics, are correct.

And why not give the author's name?  If it is anonymous, say so.  It was only about 3 years ago, so it looks like you are hiding the author's name.

The author is Simon Wong, who is a"UBS translation consultant", he footnotes his source as Scrivener. Thus it is a typical criminal citation from Rick Norris. And it is worse because Wong gives Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible p. 242 and when we go to:

The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1884)
Scrivener
http://www.archive.org/stream/authorizededitio00scri#page/242/mode/2up

there is nothing that matches the citation.  Bogus use of quote-snippets is the norm for Rick, which is why his writing is not scholarship. Rick will even place in his writing quotes that he knows are inaccurate and false, if they fit his particular posturing du jour.

Thus, no quote given by Rick should be accepted as his position, he may well know it is inaccurate which is why he gives a quote rather than an argument.  Nor should any quote-snippet be considered as accurate contextually, without independent checking.

Just to be clear.  No quote is Rick's actual position, except in the exceedingly rare case that he actually says "this is my position".

On the other hand, some quotes are accurate contextually. However, as a general rule you can never trust the quote-snippet as given by Rick, independent checking is necessary. The words will be accurate, but they could be mistaken secondary or tertiary sources (there can be a dozen secondary source quotes that all go to one source, this is a highlighted criminal citation method.) There can be errors from the writers,  they can be out of context, they are selective for one position rather than scholarship, etc.

Steven Avery

 

[logos1560]

Simon Wong wrote: “Blayney assumed wrongly that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Robert Stephanus (or Estienne) edition of the Textus Receptus tradition, whereas it was from the later editions of Beza (most likely that of 1598).  Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7).

  Concerning the italics in the 1769, Jack Countryman also reported or quoted from some source the following:  “Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; accordingly the current standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Treasure of God‘s Word, p. 75).

  For possible examples of textually-based changes in italics, see Mark 8:14, John 8:6, Acts 1:4, Acts 26:3, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 19:14, and Revelation 19:18. 

Accordingly, the correct standard text mistakenly ‘corrects’ about a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ” (Bible Translator, Vol. 62, January, 2011, p. 7).

You put this in bold which may give the false impression that it is your argument.  In fact, you never state what source texts, or in this case maybe it is referring to italics, are correct.

And why not give the author's name?  If it is anonymous, say so.  It was only about 3 years ago, so it looks like you are hiding the author's name.

I gave the author's name, but you deleted or removed it from my quotation of him when you did not give my complete quotation of what he wrote. 

You continue the typical KJV-only improper tactic of false accusation, misrepresentation, and distortion as you attempt to give the wrong impressions.

 

[logos1560]

The 1611 edition of the KJV kept or followed the incorrect reading or rendering of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible in some places where later editions were changed based on a later editor or printer's comparison to the original language texts in agreement with the reading or rendering in the 1560 Geneva Bible.

This can be easily identified as a problem with the printers of 1611, but does not amount to changing the readings and/or translation. 

That may be your mere assumption or speculation, but you do not prove that it is the actual case. 

It may have originally been a problem with the printers of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, but it has not been demonstrated to be the fault of the printers of the 1611. 

The New Testament of most pre-1769 editions of the KJV generally follow an edition of Beza's Greek text while the 1769 edition and many post-1769 editions of the KJV were revised to reflect some readings in the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Greek text.

That is misleading, as that only reflected additional marginal notes, which does not affect the Scripture text; and whether a word was in italics or roman type, which does not actually change whether a word is present or not. This does not at all lead to any reading and/or translation change.

Whether a word is in italics can reflect a difference in the original language text since typically it is indicated that there was no word in the underlying original language texts for the words put in italics. 

In at least some cases, whether a word is in italics or in roman type does change whether it is indicated that an original language word was present in the underlying text edition or was not present.

In 1833, Thomas Curtis asserted:  “Dr. Blayney and his coadjutors also employ them [italics] to express their doubts of the authenticity of particular readings--see John 8:6 where they thus, in a sense, discard the whole clause, ‘as though he heard them not’” (Existing Monopoly, p. 59).

Charles Hodge contended that “to alter these italics is, therefore, to alter the version” (Princeton Review, July, 1857, p. 513).  Hodge does raise a valid point concerning changing italics based on using a different edition of the original language text than that followed by the KJV translators themselves.  However, his point would not be valid in relationship to attempts to make the italics consistent to the actual rules or principles that the KJV translators themselves stated and used. 

For examples of likely textually-based changes in italics in the 1769 Oxford and many post-1769 KJV editions compared to pre-1769 editions, see Mark 8:14, John 8:6, Acts 1:4, Acts 26:3, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 19:14, and Revelation 19:18. 

 

[Steven Avery]

I gave the author's name, but you deleted or removed it from my quotation of him

My apologies for missing the name.  Thanks for the correction. It was a busy time and I focused on the missing Scrivener ref and forgot to go back and check the basics of the secondary author.

Now why did you not give the fact that Wong was only referencing Scrivener, and that the Scrivener page does not pan out?  Surely you knew that there is a real problem with the reference.  Why hide that info from the readers?

(I simply wanted to find out what variants or italics were being considered, since you were falsely implying that it was your position that some text was wrong.)

And why even bother with multiple secondary and teritary sources when they point to a primary source.  Why don't you finally drop that criminal citation method?

Steven Avery

 

[bibleprotector]

Whether a word is in italics can reflect a difference in the original language text since typically it is indicated that there was no word in the underlying original language texts for the words put in italics.

Italics does not change the readings or the translation in the KJB, as Dr Blayney explained, it is actually for the complete sense in English. Therefore, if the word be present, whether in italics or not, has not altered its status, i.e. it has not changed the KJB's readings and translation: italicising words is not different than changing the size or the weight of the typefont.

In 1833, Thomas Curtis asserted

Just because someone said something does not make that right. I realise that you can always find some doubter or ignorant person who has said something you like, because it fits your prejudicial a priori bias, but that does not give credence to the correctness of such "assertions".

 

[logos1560]

Just because someone said something does not make that right. I realise that you can always find some doubter or ignorant person who has said something you like, because it fits your prejudicial a priori bias, but that does not give credence to the correctness of such "assertions".

Actually your comments would be a more accurate description of your own KJV-only assumptions. 

It is your KJV-only theory and its claims that typically rests upon unproven, prejudicial a priori assumptions or on the begging the question fallacy, but that does not give credence to the imagined or merely assumed "correctness" of such incorrect KJV-only assertions.

 

[bibleprotector]

Actually your comments would be a more accurate description of your own KJV-only assumptions.

Really? Because I am not the one who seeks out reams of quotations to attack anti-KJB folks, yet you attempt to do it against KJB folks.

It is your KJV-only theory and its claims that typically rests upon unproven, prejudicial a priori assumptions or on the begging the question fallacy, but that does not give credence to the imagined or merely assumed "correctness" of such incorrect KJV-only assertions.

What you are saying, in summary, is that it is your view that my view is wrong, and that you are interested in trying to score points against simple folks who may not articulate with polished arguments, giving you the satisfaction of trying to belittle their position.

So, in your pitiless, ruthless manner, you would quite eagerly be doing the same to a young or naive Christian who was trying to defend the Trinity or water baptism or something, because they did not argue well enough, and whom you could imply lack of intellectual capability? Is that really the right kind of approach to take, if your view be right, and a belief in God's words perfect in English is wrong?

 

[Steven Avery]

Now why did you not give the fact that Wong was only referencing Scrivener, and that the Scrivener page does not pan out?  Surely you knew that there is a real problem with the reference.  Why hide that info from the readers?

Waiting for a response:

1) Why give the Wong reference at all?
Why not the source that Wong references?

2) If the source does not pan out to say what Wong claimed, you should simply remove the reference.

3) You emphasized the reference.  Apparently it was inaccurate, making it bogus.
  Why do you use it? Surely you had the same ability to check Scrivener.  And you would know the reference does not work.

Steven Avery