Hi all, first post here so I'll just give some background info before I jump into the topic.



Bible used: KJV auth. Zondervan "copyright" 2000...not sure what auth. version is based on?
Protestant, new to Pauline Dispensationalism.
Brought up in non-denominational Christian home, became Christian about age 16+/-....I support KJVO after finding the disgusting (understatement!) omissions in my NIV "Bible."

The Pilcrow ¶
The following Pilcrows are at the beginning of each verse in my KJV, check yours too see if we match:
Matt28= verse 9, 11, 16 and 19.
Mark16= v9, 12, 14 & 19.
Luke24= 13, 36, 49 & 50.
John= 11, 19, 24, 26 & 30.
Biblegateway.com doesn have pilcrows for the KJV.
Blue letter Bible does have pilcrows but do not have all that I have.

Purpose:I'm debunking the alleged contradictions of the Gospels account of the resurrection. I have normally ignored the pilcrow but upon studying these Gospels intensely for the last several days I am sure that these pilcrows have crucialmeaning!!!

If I am correct about the pilcrow, then I think I may have stumbled onto an amazing puzzle that if solved will do two things:

1) It will show how the Bible proves itself infallible in a way that also (2) shows that the KJV is the ONLY Bible because no other version will be able to prove itself in this same manner because of the pilcrow and because of the all essential WORDING of the KJV.

I need to be SURE though of what the pilcrow means.
Does the Pilcrow have a meaning that pre-dates the translations?
From studying these 4 gospels, it seems to me that the Pilcrow symbolizes a division in time in which, certain things occured but the writer chose not to include it.

Upon studying these last chapters it is clear that the 'contradictions' are merely a difference in the events and the points/details within the events actually recorded by the respective authors. If you're having trouble getting around that statement heres a simple eg:

Only two gospels have the Sermon on the mount: does that mean that because the other two didn't record it, it didn't happen?
NO! Its just (in that case) a difference in the events actually recorded.

Its safe to say that these Gospels concerning the resurrection supplement each other - I think that:

Where one apostle mentions 'x' event, and another doesnt mention it, the pilcrow (obviously in the right time in the account) is used to designate a gap in time in which, certain things occured but the writer chose not to include it.

If we look on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilcrow

Another derivation suggested is pilcrow originating as a letter C, for capitulum, "chapter" in Latin.

If it has the same purpose then it would suggest that the available manuscripts for translation had some sort of symbol that indicating a "new section" or a "new topic" rather than the adopted Chapters and verses the translators used?

I found some other definitions of the pilcrow and I mashed them together creating one def.:

"Denotes/designates an individual, separate paragraph, marks the beginning of a new train of thought"

So what do ya think?
Is the pilcrow what I think it is?:
a gap in time in which, certain things occured but the writer chose not to include it, therefore, other accounts that DID include it may be super-imposed creating on unison account?

Thanks!

[Biblestudent]

Isn't it a "paragraph mark"?Then it indicates another paragraph with another topic.

Yes I know its a paragrapg mark but ask yourself this:

If its noting that the following paragraph is of the a new topic, then (assuming that the pilcrow has always been in the KJV) why did the KJV translators adopt a Chapter & Verse format whilst including the pilcrows? (ignoring the obvious reasons of easy-referencing).

I read somewhere (I think it was a mormon forum though) that if you want to read it in the way the actual manuscript had layed it out- ignore the chapters and verses and take not eof the pilcrows.

THen again, I saw a pilcrow in genesis where it seemed odd; it had a direct transition and the train of thought was still on the same rails as before the pilcrow.

And to add to that, if the pilcrow in the bible does actually indicate a new paragraph like it does today then that topic designated can be something that happened WAAAY later in the day right? Since its a train of thought?

Therefore it can be seen as something that could separate 2 events within the context of the authors record?

Some cases there are obvious transitions in topics like "the next day..." so the pilcrow isnt needed.

The my question still burns: Is the pilcrow (or some other symbol which translators used the pilcrow to substitute) in the available manuscripts?

Not very clear on this part:

Its safe to say that these Gospels concerning the resurrection supplement each other - I think that:

Where one apostle mentions 'x' event, and another doesnt mention it, the pilcrow (obviously in the right time in the account) is used to designate a gap in time in which, certain things occured but the writer chose not to include it.

What I mean to say was

Where apostle A mentions 'x' event, and Apostle Bdoesnt mention it, the pilcrow in apostle B's record (obviously in the right time in the account) is used to designate a gap in time where 'x' event occured recorded by Apostle A but Bchose not to include it since he either knew that A already mentioned it OR through the divine inspiration guidance he chose not to record.

[chette777]

along with a change in topic/thought it would have the essence of a gap of time in soe instances such as found throughout the book of Acts.

but generally they are placed to show a change in topic/thought of the writer

[peopleoftheway]

Short Bible verses make for very choppy paragraphs, and little or no margin lines. The pilcrow allowed the translators to show paragraph breaks without actually wasting the space.
I guess if anyone says that the Pilcrow wasn't in the originals and neither where Chapter and verse. Then here is simple proof that they where all inspired in the same way that the Italics where inspired.
If the chapters and verses aren't inspired, then are the vowels and spaces? we know that Hebrew didn't have vowels or spaces or lowercase letters.
So If ONLY the original manuscripts where inspired then lets remove all the vowels, spaces and lowercase letters from a well known portion of scripture

SLMFDVDTHLRDSMYSHPHRDSHLLNTWNTHMK
THMTLDWNNGRNPSTRSHLDTHMBSDTHSTLLW
TRSHRSTRTHMYSLHLDTHMNTHPTHSFRGHTS
NSSFRHSNMSSKYTHGHWLKTHRGHTHVLLYFT
HSHDWFDTHWLLFRNVLFRTHRTWTHMTHYRDN
DTHYSTFFTHYCMFRTMTHPRPRSTTBLBFRMN
THPRSNCFMNNMSTHNNTSTMYHDWTHLMYCPR
NNTHVRSRLYGDNSSNDMRCYSHLLFLLWMLLT
HDYSFMYLFNDWLLDWLLNTHHSFTHLRDFRVR

Inspired ?

In the name of My LORD Jesus Christ.

[chette777]

People,

which portion of scripture is that?

[peopleoftheway]

Psalm 23 Brother.

Look over it again, you may need to look about 7 letters in and start and it will be revealed to you!

In The name of My Saviour, Jesus Christ.