Yes, that's what I meant.
I think the confusion I'm having is the same confusion I had with Zetherin about whether propositions must be true or false. Just because a proposition is true/false, that doesn't mean the proposition is a necessary truth/falsity, yet despite that, not only is it true that propositions are true or false, but (and apparently because of the law of bivalence), they must be either true or false.
I posted it earlier but here it is again:
Necessarily, for all propositions, that proposition is true or false.
For all propositions, that proposition is necessarily true or necessarily false.
[/INDENT]Don't confuse them, if you do. They are not logically equivalent. I'm not sure if one of them imply the other, but I don't think so. Normal english is not very good at distinguishing between them, especially not when people add all other sorts of vague or ambiguous phrases/words such as "set in stone", "has to be", "MUST be", "must be", ""must" be", and what have we not.