Questions for bibleprotector

[bibleprotector]

"Too many"... really? You think that defense works in your favor?

If you carefully looked at every book ever printed, you would find a few printing unique mistakes in most sets of printing plates.

Are we just to take your compilation and false 12 test standard and just accept it

Clearly you don't want to accept facts. It is a fact that the same Edition was published for many decades. It is a fact that my files match that same Edition. The only conclusion one can come to is your extreme desire to believe otherwise.

 

[bibleprotector]

there are too many changes to list...

That is an absurd and false statement. I didn't make any changes in the manner you imply by making your own incorrect statement. I said there are too many typographical errors that have been made in the past to list them all, seeing that it would require looking at every impression ever printed and comparing each one to other copies. Looking for an accidental comma somewhere would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. And what would it serve, to try to find one unique error in some or other printed copy of the KJB in a certain size and style from 1948 or something?

 

[Steven Avery]

Rick Norris loves to waste hour upon hour listing editions of the AV on tiny variants.

FSSL can simply give the list of variants that are his concern to Rick Norris, and they will both be happy.

 

[FSSL]

We never set up the false standard that a particular KJV is punctuation, capitalization and spelling perfect.

You do not have the luxury to claim your KJV is inerrant with all of these variants.

Since we are now told that there were too many corrections made... your admissions prove that you are both intentionally and happily perpetuating a hoax.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Bible corrector didn't correct anything in the inerrant King Jimmy. He just changed some words, added commas, removed others, capitalized some parts, changed a few words, etc..

It really is pitiful the way they twist things.

 

[bibleprotector]

You do not have the luxury to claim your KJV is inerrant with all of these variants.

You are once again engaging in a hamfisted dishonest deception. Seeing that inerrancy only applies to Scripture, to say that any version, translation or edition is specifically inerrant is not correct terminology.

Since we are now told that there were too many corrections made...

I never said that, and you are misreading quite deliberately. I said there are too many typographical errors in the existence and history of printed books for me to read. I never said that there were any typographical errors in the PCE as presented on my website, but said that it was free from any typographical errors which may exist in other books.

your admissions prove that you are both intentionally and happily perpetuating a hoax.

On the contrary, your deliberate deceptions indicate that you are perpetuating dishonest propaganda, whereas I have been sincere, upfront and clear in what I have said.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Rick Norris loves to waste hour upon hour listing editions of the AV on tiny variants.

FSSL can simply give the list of variants that are his concern to Rick Norris, and they will both be happy.

What's tiny about an variant"?

You're the dishonest hacks that want to endlessly reference  the "jot" and "tittle". Do you even know what a "jot" and "tittle" is?

A variant is a variant. Nothing tiny about it.

 

[FSSL]

Clearly you don't want to accept facts. It is a fact that the same Edition was published for many decades. It is a fact that my files match that same Edition. The only conclusion one can come to is your extreme desire to believe otherwise.

You have provided no facts. What year was this edition published by Cambridge?

 

[bibleprotector]

Clearly you don't want to accept facts. It is a fact that the same Edition was published for many decades. It is a fact that my files match that same Edition. The only conclusion one can come to is your extreme desire to believe otherwise.

You have provided no facts. What year was this edition published by Cambridge?

The facts are that this Edition was published between at least 1928 and 1985 by Cambridge, but was printed by other publishers also, and continues to be, since 1985.

 

[Steven Avery]

What's tiny about an variant"?
You're the dishonest hacks that want to endlessly reference  the "jot" and "tittle". Do you even know what a "jot" and "tittle" is?
A variant is a variant. Nothing tiny about it.

This is just stupidity.  There are hundreds of huge, major variants, corruptions from Vaticanus to the modern versions.  Those don't bother you.  Most of the AV edition variants are in fact tiny in physical size, and in meaning (if any at all).

 

[FSSL]

Clearly you don't want to accept facts. It is a fact that the same Edition was published for many decades. It is a fact that my files match that same Edition. The only conclusion one can come to is your extreme desire to believe otherwise.

You have provided no facts. What year was this edition published by Cambridge?

The facts are that this Edition was published between at least 1928 and 1985 by Cambridge, but was printed by other publishers also, and continues to be, since 1985.

... so there is no particularly dated edition you can point to.

 

[bibleprotector]

... so there is no particularly dated edition you can point to.

There are many particularly dated editions that can be pointed to.

Your fallacy is that something is identified by its first appearance, whereas, there is ample evidence of one singular Edition being published over a range of years in many instances. There is, then, no requirement to have the "editio princeps" in order to identify a range of conformed impressions. The evidence is of many consenting copies, which you cannot deny.

In the past, an Edition was tied to a particular impression because printing was reset each time, that is, new printing plates made. Whereas, because of improved technology, and a concerted effort to adhere to more exacting standards, it is clear that in the 19th century and beyond, there was much greater conformity, even when new plates were being made. Thus, there is a clear tradition of editorial conformity evident over a variety of different publication dates and styles.

It also seems that you might be attempting to suggest the fallacious argument that where a new printing set was made, and that new set created a typographical error, that this therefore must not be counted as conforming to the same Edition, even though it might be identical to other instances of it in every other place ... except perhaps that another of the comparing copies might be missing a full stop at the end of Mark (1936, Cameo, 16mo, Refs, CUP), and another has "mightv" instead of "mighty" in Jeremiah 48:41 (1980s, Cameo, 8vo, CUP). Does that make it not a PCE? According to your polluted view, you can happily discount all because of these things. Absurdly, you will accuse my edition for either having the full stop or having "mighty" and then bluster that my setting forth (which is free from typographical errors) is not matching the source materials.

So, I am conforming to what is represented by this consensus from many years of reputable Bible publishers, which is a singular Edition. Your position against sound copy-editing is untenable.

 

[FSSL]

I am not the one who suggests that typographical errors are not errors.

You have compiled your own edition off a few of these. It would be good to know which one provided the basis for your so-called PCE.

I.am not against copy editing. I am against those who HIDE their edits.

 

[Ransom]

There are many particularly dated editions that can be pointed to.

Then why are you so aggressively avoiding pointing to just one of them? That should make your job easier.

 

[bibleprotector]

I am not the one who suggests that typographical errors are not errors.

I'm not. It seems to me that you are implying a deceptive claim that a typographical error equals an error in God's truth.

You have compiled your own edition off a few of these.

Only one Edition is being referred to. If you mean several publications of that same Edition which may be called editions, then of course, my setting forth is free from typographical errors of which printings from publishers traditionally were not entirely free.

It would be good to know which one provided the basis for your so-called PCE.

Another absurd accusation, seeing that not only has the information all been given on my website, but that the "one" is clearly what has been designated the "Pure Cambridge Edition". It is that "one" Edition which has been published many times, in many sizes and formats, by various printers and publishers, such as Cambridge University Press, William Collins/HarperCollins and others.

The Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) is therefore not "mine", in that it was printed many times prior to my existence, and prior to my website which began in 2007.

If you were to actually look on my website, or at least just accept what I am saying here, since I am telling you the honest facts, I used a number of copies, including electronic copies, of the Pure Cambridge Edition for comparison of the common Edition which they testify and adhere to. Thus, a typographical error in one would clearly not be witnessed to in others, in part of the copy-editorial method of comparison.

I am not against copy editing.

Then why this violent crusade against what I have properly and acceptably done? Even your own friends have copies of the PCE. The PCE is there for everyone, regardless of whether you might like the ESV. Even evil people can get the PCE.

I am against those who HIDE their edits.

I agree that it would be wrong to hide something. But I haven't. Indeed I haven't actually changed anything. All the information is out there: you can compare any printed copy of the PCE with the one of my website, and you will find correct copy-editing and no typographical errors. All of what is there is obvious, and I have expressly stated the things which I have done. So clearly, it is an absolutely accurate representation of was a commonly printed 20th century Cambridge text.

It is wrong for you to imply that I have hidden something, evaded something or suppressed something. I simply haven't. The Pure Cambridge Edition is a normal and accepted Edition of the King James Bible, and it is proper to consider it the standard representation of the King James Bible.

 

[bibleprotector]

There are many particularly dated editions that can be pointed to.

Then why are you so aggressively avoiding pointing to just one of them? That should make your job easier.

Why are you reading in some kind of motives which do not exist? I have laid out in detail on my website.

Here are just a few examples:

CUP, 1892/1916-1923, Minion, 8vo.
CUP, 1932, Amethyst, C.E., 32mo.
CUP, 1938, Cameo, 16mo, refs, pron.
CUP, 1939, Minion, 16mo, refs
CUP, 1948, Sapphire, 16mo, refs, pron.
Collins, 1949, New Brev., 8vo, pron.
Collins, 1959, Fontana, 8vo, pron.
CUP, 1959, Ruby, 32mo
CUP, 1962, Pitt Minion, 8vo, bold refs
CUP, 1969, Pitt Brevier, 8vo, with Apoc.
CUP, 1980s, Cameo, 8vo, pron.

 

[Ransom]

Why are you reading in some kind of motives which do not exist?

Why do you behave like you have something to hide? If it quacks like a duck . . .

 

[Steven Avery]

Is the question here relating to PDFs in the last few years of the PCE, editions of the AV from Cambridge and Oxford, both, neither, something else?

Are you seeking a study of variants, or a list of differences from one edition to another?

Steven

 

[bibleprotector]

Why are you reading in some kind of motives which do not exist?

Why do you behave like you have something to hide? If it quacks like a duck . . .

From my point of view it is very obvious why you continually misinterpret me and my position.

 

[FSSL]

Here are just a few examples:

CUP, 1892/1916-1923, Minion, 8vo.
CUP, 1932, Amethyst, C.E., 32mo.
CUP, 1938, Cameo, 16mo, refs, pron.
CUP, 1939, Minion, 16mo, refs
CUP, 1948, Sapphire, 16mo, refs, pron.
Collins, 1949, New Brev., 8vo, pron.
Collins, 1959, Fontana, 8vo, pron.
CUP, 1959, Ruby, 32mo
CUP, 1962, Pitt Minion, 8vo, bold refs
CUP, 1969, Pitt Brevier, 8vo, with Apoc.
CUP, 1980s, Cameo, 8vo, pron.

Are all of these EXACTLY like yours down to the punctuation?