[bibleprotector]

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Notice the words "a preparing".

“A” is placed before a participle, or participial noun; and is considered as a contraction of “at” (or “on”), when it is put before a word denoting some action not yet finished. Thus, “a dying” (Luke 8:42), “a fishing” (John 21:3) and “an hungred” (Matt. 4:2).

Related to this must be the use at 2 Chronicles 2:18, “to set the people a work.”

Also, “a readiness”, as at 2 Corinthians 10:6.

[bibleprotector]

All the words of the King James Bible have particular meanings, and their meanings are right. It is clear that what appears to be similar words, say, "sometime" and "sometimes" have two different meanings. This is the case with all synonyms. John William Burgon also commented on this, explaining something which the translators themselves wrote about in their preface:

“Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of dictation which are rather to be felt than analysed, — any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject ‘purpose,’ ‘journey,’ ‘think,’ ‘pain,’ ‘joy,’ — in favour of ‘intent,’ ‘travel,’ ‘suppose,’ ‘ache,’ ‘gladness.’ But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. Hence their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves ‘to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.’ We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), ‘if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.’ But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration.”

It is altogether a mistake to think that words or jots and tittles in the Bible do not matter. They do indeed matter, because each different words imparts a particular meaning, or even just because of "Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of dictation which are rather to be felt than analysed".

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There we have it. This shows that the TRO and the modernist do agree on one thing, that the KJB is in error.

Rather than searching the Scripture, studying and believing, we observe that the interpretations and philosophy of man are put above the Scripture.

I believe that Jesus went to hell. This is what the KJB says. By hell, I mean the place of torment. This is what the KJB shows. However, I also know that he preached to the souls in prison, that is, paradise and Abraham's bosom, which is across some gulf in the middle of the earth. This is also what the KJB reveals in various references. Clearly Christ did suffer the wrath of God on sin in the pit of hell, because He did indeed become sin for us. This is the Gospel in the KJB. He went to hell so that I (and every believer) does not have to go there.

Notice that when we take the KJB, we find that we will have correct doctrine. The KJB does not contradict itself. It is indeed true.

I Totally disagree!!!! And I don’t have to go to the Greek to prove that this understanding is Biblically false. I would be careful reading ideas into certain text of Scripture. Context, context, context!!! Do not forget proper Biblical Hermeneutics.

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

Geneva 1587: Which were in time passed disobedient, when once the long suffering of God abode in the dayes of Noe, while the Arke was preparing, wherein fewe, that is, eight soules were saued in the water.

Coverdale: which were in time past disobedient, when the long suffering of God abode exceeding patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few (that is to say eight souls) were saved by water,

I think men that lived in old English times know more about it than you newfangling KJVOnly novices.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Notice the words "a preparing".

What exactly is your hair-brained argument here, BP? Are you really going to say that "while the ark was preparing" and "while the ark was a preparing" mean different things? Or that "I go a fishing" and "I go fishing" are totally different statements? If you want to assert something insane, I can't stop you, but I am surprised that you just offered it out of nowhere. Who was arguing against the participial use of "a"? Crickets? Spacemen? Crickets from outer space? Clearly English used to use "a" a lot like Spanish still does. So what? What is your actual point?

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

And here I thought that only KJBOs could be nasty. Better watch out TRO, your character is showing.

Pointing out that BP doesn't even know the language that he wants to lock the Bible in, is not nasty anymore than trotting out the recordings of the "Reverend" Wright and his hate speech is nasty toward Obama. If the shoe fits, wear it.

By the way, the accusation of "modernist TROs" is extremely funny, considering that TROs had to be around before the KJV. Otherwise, why wasn't the KJV based on the Vulgate? or on Vaticanus? Fact is, you KJVOs are the modernists.

[bibleprotector]

Context, context, context!!! Do not forget proper Biblical Hermeneutics.

Actually, conference of Scripture with Scripture is the principle, not merely context. (There is no real examples of so-called "context" interpretation of the OT in the NT.) And "Biblical hermeneutics" often is a way of making the Bible NOT relevant to today.

[bibleprotector]

Geneva 1587: Which were in time passed disobedient, when once the long suffering of God abode in the dayes of Noe, while the Arke was preparing, wherein fewe, that is, eight soules were saued in the water.

Coverdale: which were in time past disobedient, when the long suffering of God abode exceeding patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few (that is to say eight souls) were saved by water,

Well, "passed" is just the old spelling of "past". We see that in our pure and final KJB.

Are you really going to say that "while the ark was preparing" and "while the ark was a preparing" mean different things?

Yes. Similar, but different.

So what? What is your actual point?

That the English of the KJB is perfect and exact.

[Brother Tim]

TRO said:

Pointing out that BP doesn't even know the language that he wants to lock the Bible in, is not nasty anymore than ...

You might want to research your use of "hair-brained" before you criticize others of their lack of knowledge of language.

And, yes, you are using unnecessarily rude speech. Because I am a teacher of young students, I commonly use plain words like "nasty" which they comprehend better than "rude". Due to your immature language, I thought it appropriate.