Questions for bibleprotector

[bibleprotector]

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?

It appears that you are trying to make a deceptive argument. I said that any might have a typographical error somewhere. I said that mine is free from typographical errors. Therefore, according to your dishonest misrepresentation, you will not accept a corrected copy. I have not changed the Edition, but have been conformed to it fully.

The Pure Cambridge Edition is discerned by using a series of test passages/instances, which show that it is a specific unique Edition of the KJB. This is how all Editions are classified.

 

[subllibrm]

Okay guys, enough of this. The reason that BP's version/edtion is perfect is because he edited it of all man made errors and made that final iteration available to the rest of us.

So the issue isn't the inerrancy of scripture (which we all agree upon). The issue is that BP is a perfect editor and produces perfectly edited copies of other people's imperfect work.

He gave a list of examples and shared his method. Compare a bunch of iterations of the same thing. Find differences in the results. Declare which of those is correct and poof an even more perfect, perfect bible.

Now how he decides which is correct I have no idea. That must come with the apostolic authority granted to him.

 

[bibleprotector]

Okay guys, enough of this. The reason that BP's version/edtion is perfect is because he edited it of all man made errors and made that final iteration available to the rest of us.

This is a false accusation. I didn't change an Edition. I simply made sure that there was a copy without a typographical error in it.

So the issue isn't the inerrancy of scripture (which we all agree upon). The issue is that BP is a perfect editor and produces perfectly edited copies of other people's imperfect work.

Utterly ridiculous, because that (perfectionism) nothing to do with the issue. We are talking about the fact that any printed work could have typographical errors, and the fact that I have made available a copy with none. That's just based on copy-editing practices, not on whether I am perfect or not.

He gave a list of examples and shared his method. Compare a bunch of iterations of the same thing. Find differences in the results. Declare which of those is correct and poof an even more perfect, perfect bible.

This is quite silly, seeing that obviously one printed copy (out of, say, one hundred examples) missing a full stop is clearly (and obviously) a typographical error. The attack on such copy editing is astounding, as though all the world is upside down.

Now how he decides which is correct I have no idea. That must come with the apostolic authority granted to him.

The only reason why you have no idea is because of deliberate and wilful ignorance. It is not difficult for people other than recalcitrant and obdurate fellows like yourself to see that one copy somewhere uniquely missing a full stop at the end of a sentence is indeed a typographical error. Your gleeful mocking and wishful foolishness that this wasn't so is indicative only of your affinity with things quite against what is decent and proper.

 

[FSSL]

I said that any might have a typographical error somewhere. I said that mine is free from typographical errors.

I get it. YOURS is free from error, the others may not be.

 

[subllibrm]

Okay guys, enough of this. The reason that BP's version/edtion is perfect is because he edited it of all man made errors and made that final iteration available to the rest of us.

This is a false accusation. I didn't change an Edition. I simply made sure that there was a copy without a typographical error in it.

Which is editing. Earlier you described you efforts as editing out typos and now you claim that you have not edited. And then again describe you actions which are the definition of editing. Unless your document is full of "(sic)" notations then you edited it.

BTW I work in printing. I know all about typos and print errors.

Sorry pal but you claim that you (and only you) have finally achieved by your own hand what 400+ years of human interaction with the KJV text had not.

 

[subllibrm]

I said that any might have a typographical error somewhere. I said that mine is free from typographical errors.

I get it. YOURS is free from error, the others may not be.

And it only took 400 years to finally achieve perfect perfection.

 

[rsc2a]

I said that any might have a typographical error somewhere. I said that mine is free from typographical errors.

I get it. YOURS is free from error, the others may not be.

And it only took 400 years to finally achieve perfect perfection.

And yet the others were all perfect.

 

[subllibrm]

I said that any might have a typographical error somewhere. I said that mine is free from typographical errors.

I get it. YOURS is free from error, the others may not be.

And it only took 400 years to finally achieve perfect perfection.

And yet the others were all perfect.

That which is different is not the same. Unless it a bunch of different KJVs. Then they are all differently the same.

 

[bibleprotector]

Which is editing.

I did not change an Edition, I copy-edited.

Earlier you described you efforts as editing out typos and now you claim that you have not edited.

I did not change an Edition, I copy-edited.

And then again describe you actions which are the definition of editing.

I did not change an Edition, I copy-edited.

Unless your document is full of "(sic)" notations then you edited it.

I did not change an Edition, I copy-edited.

BTW I work in printing. I know all about typos and print errors.

Then it should be obvious to you that did not change an Edition, I merely copy-edited.

Sorry pal but you claim that you (and only you) have finally achieved by your own hand what 400+ years of human interaction with the KJV text had not.

Except, I didn't work on the text (readings), I didn't work on the translations, I didn't change the Edition, no, I copy-edited a text file to ensure that it had no typographical errors!

 

[bibleprotector]

And it only took 400 years to finally achieve perfect perfection.

You are confusing (and I think deliberately so) five different categories:

1. The perfection of Scripture,
2. The perfection of a text (set of readings),
3. The perfection of a translation,
4. The perfection of an Edition, and
5. The perfection of an impression or setting forth.

I did number 5. I believe 1 to 4 already existed.

 

[bibleprotector]

That which is different is not the same. Unless it a bunch of different KJVs. Then they are all differently the same.

You are clearly, deliberately confusing the differences of the perfection of Scripture, of text and translation, of Edition with having a copy of something which is free from typographical errors.

It is theoretically possible to have a copy of all kinds of materials free from typographical errors. There's plenty of examples, no doubt, especially of well read and short works which doubtless have immaculate copies.

Why, even your sentence above is typographically sound, and that's quite fine.

 

[FSSL]

I did not change an Edition, I copy-edited.
I did not change an Edition, I copy-edited.
I did not change an Edition, I copy-edited.
I did not change an Edition, I copy-edited.
I merely copy-edited.
...I copy-edited a text file to ensure that it had no typographical errors!

Do you have an Errata of the edits you made?

 

[praise_yeshua]

He believes he has been Providentially called to be the protector of the KJV and free it from any printer, copyist, or translator error....

This is a false accusation, because I didn't translate the Bible. I didn't copy or publish the Bible until recent years. How on earth could I be called to be the "protector of the KJV" for all that I didn't do?

Of course, he can't prove this any more than he can prove much of anything. He just expects people to believe because he says its true.

This is false, and also an unjust slur since I am not proud.

1Ti 6:3  If someone spreads false teachings and does not agree with sound words (that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and with the teaching that accords with godliness,
1Ti 6:4  he is proud and understands nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in controversies and verbal disputes. This gives rise to envy, dissension, slanders, evil suspicions,

 

[bibleprotector]

Do you have an Errata of the edits you made?

First of all, an errata [yes, I know the grammar of my sentence would require the word "erratum"] is something which is put in the front of a book after it is printed to show the corrigenda. Seeing that the I have supplied the KJB with typographical accuracy, there is no such list to give. People have had it and been looking at it (no doubt very scrupulously and minutely) for the past few years, and there are no such issues.

I did not make any "edits" to change previously existing material, I simply eliminated any typographical errors from possibly existing in an electronic file. This was by comparing to and examining in concert with multiple sources.

I don't know of all hypothetical typographical errors that could exist, but I do know that they can be eliminated. In other words, if you were to point to a Bible from 50 years ago and say that you found a letter missing or something somewhere, I may not know that, but what I do know is that by rigorous examination and comparison, the copy of the PCE that I have supplied is free from any such typographical errors.

Therefore, to demand of me what typographical errors may hypothetically exist somewhere in some copy somewhere is irrelevant.

The information about all this, including methodology, editorial approach, etc. is all on my website. I have hidden nothing, and have supplied editorial information in regards to how the consensus of copies were dealt with.

 

[bibleprotector]

I am not proud.

I suggest you examine yourself in light of this passage:

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

 

[FSSL]

Seeing that the I have supplied the KJB with typographical accuracy, there is no such list to give.

Surely you have a list of all the things you copy-edited.

 

[bibleprotector]

Seeing that the I have supplied the KJB with typographical accuracy, there is no such list to give.

Surely you have a list of all the things you copy-edited.

You clearly do not understand the matter. I took a number of electronic texts, particularly ones which were of the PCE, and compared them together, and all the time referring every several place with multiple printed copies of the PCE. The copy editing to eliminate typographical errors just meant conforming source materials to the printed copies, thus, there is no "list" though there are all kinds of typographical errors which existed in electronic copies, which is a obvious known fact, just look at this old information from 1989, http://web.mit.edu/bible/mormon/bible.diffs

 

[FSSL]

I understand. You did copy-editing and did not keep record of your edits.

Whatever that source was... you will not reveal. It had too many errors to make notations and there were all kinds of errors.

You just expect everyone to trust your copy-editing of 12,143 words is perfect.

 

[bibleprotector]

I understand. You did copy-editing and did not keep record of your edits.

That is an absurdly false statement. I did copy editing based on many files and consulting many sources. There are no errata to record because the various typographical errors in all sources were eliminated by cross examination of each other. Thus, comparing to any source with any source is a means of copy-editing, and this many times, so that of course there are no typographical errors.

You are assuming a single beginning point, whereas I started with multiple representatives of the same Edition. Thus there are no "errata" to list. Of course, I can point out to you plenty of errata in various file-based KJB texts: you could do it yourself: just do an ASCII comparison between my files and any internet files.

Whatever that source was... you will not reveal.

False again. I have constantly said that the source was multiple electronic texts of the PCE in comparison with maybe a dozen printed copies of the same. Since that time I have obtained many more printed copies, and there is only confirmation of the same.

It had too many errors to make notations and there were all kinds of errors.

What is this "it" you refer to? The fact is that all printed copies, and all electronic texts of the KJB may be historically subject to typographical errors. There are not vast amounts in the way you deceptively misinterpret, merely, that they are so few and far in printed PCE KJBs, that I have probably never found most of them in any Bible. Thus, the task would be too great, and totally misguided to do so. And why do it? Why hunt for typos in any one or other printing of the KJB? Such a task is a waste of time. No, rather, it is right to have a correct electronic text, which then becomes a standard of comparison, and useful even for printing.

Also, it is very dishonest for you to claim that there were "all kinds of errors", indeed errors (the few that existed in typography here or there) may be of all kinds, but this is a fact and common in all books, which may have a few or all kinds (varieties) of typographical errors (just use the textual critical method for identifying copyist errors to know what kinds are possible!)

You just expect everyone to trust your copy-editing of 12,143 words is perfect.

First, I expect that folks like you will always doubt and question no matter what, no matter that many people, learned experts, technically experienced people, have checked. No, you would not take the word of a thousand eminent men, for your most prejudiced view you have of me.

Second, the product is not hidden, but present, and obvious, common and freely available. You wish to sling mud even though you yourself can compare my files to any files. But no, you will not be content, but to cast a grave question, endless questions, over my work, my ability, my reason, my existence. Yes, your kind are so entrenched that you would never so much as admit that such an Edition actually exists. Such views of extreme bias cannot be anything but driven by ill motives.

Third, while I have said there is no typographical error, no one has honestly found one: compare to the printed copies of the Pure Cambridge Edition and you should see very plainly that my file is the same Edition, and is indeed without typographical error. This is all you have, the hollow cry that your ignorance of the issue trumps all things. It appears that you are afraid to check, because you don't want to admit that I am right. Of course, I am giving you the opportunity to bring up any example of a typographical error in my files. By this, I mean that you should be honest, and not say where you think the KJB is in error on some translation issue or something, but where my file does not reflect the consensus of printed copies due to some singular oversight on my account ... but there is none of course, which I know is galling for you to take.

And dare I claim that the Holy Ghost brought me to a place providentially or gave me a mind to do this careful copy-editing, I should imagine you will pick up stones.

 

[bibleprotector]

You just expect everyone to trust your copy-editing of 12,143 words is perfect.

What is 12,143? The KJB (PCE) has 789,630 words (counting all hyphenated and apostrophised words as one whole word).