What is "proper copy editing?"

[FSSL]

Bibleprotector tells us he has engaged in proper copy editing. What does that mean?

Does this involve changing the wrong word here and there? Or is it just dealing with spellings?

 

[bibleprotector]

Bibleprotector tells us he has engaged in proper copy editing. What does that mean?

Does this involve changing the wrong word here and there? Or is it just dealing with spellings?

There are five areas, they are:
1. The Scripture.
2. The readings.
3. The translation.
4. The Edition.
5. The setting-forth.

Copy-editing does not change the Scripture, it does not change the version-readings, it does not change the translation and did does not even change the Edition. The Edition means a particular set of editorial choices. Copy-editing is less than that. Copy-editing simply deals with the correctness of the typography and such matters.

Therefore, for someone to ensure that there is a work without typographical errors, that is proper. To question whether such work is proper is very strange indeed.

Consider what I did. I didn't change any spellings or any words. Basically, in this sense, the copy-editing that I employed is really "critical proofreading".

I simply took an Edition of the King James Bible, and ensured that it was without typographical errors. This is because probably every printing, and especially computer files of the KJB, have some sort of typographical error in them somewhere. Some have very few, and some have dozens.

It is a false dichotomy, a false dilemma, to state, "Does this involve changing the wrong word here and there? Or is it just dealing with spellings?" because on the most basic level, it is just ensuring typographical accuracy, basically proofreading.

Questioning this with a "What does that mean?" is staggering. Or maybe staggering for normal people, but in this case, we see a few who clearly have such a vindictive distrust anything that makes the King James Bible seem good.

 

[FSSL]

I can imagine questioning a self-proclaimed Bible protector with unverified apostolic authority is always not taken well.

Don't your followers deserve better than this? Are you not aware that when you said over-and-over again that you did a solo copy-editing process and claim that you got it all... and it is exactly perfect?

So... you didnt change a word... you didnt correct any spellings... just EXACTLY what did you do?

 

[bibleprotector]

Don't your followers deserve better than this? Are you not aware that when you said over-and-over again that you did a solo copy-editing process and claim that you got it all... and it is exactly perfect?

So... you didnt change a word... you didnt correct any spellings... just EXACTLY what did you do?

I didn't change any words or spellings.

This is what I did:

I critically resolved copy-editorial issues and made sure there was a "edito exemplaris" with no typographical error.

 

[Ransom]

Speaking as someone for whom copyediting is part of his livelihood . . . Insert horselaugh here.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Speaking as someone for whom copyediting is part of his livelihood . . . Insert horselaugh here.

I pretty certain that he at least made word choice between various Cambridge editions.  He can say that the didn't change "spelling" and only fixed "typographical" errors....

I think he knows he's not being entirely honest.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Don't your followers deserve better than this? Are you not aware that when you said over-and-over again that you did a solo copy-editing process and claim that you got it all... and it is exactly perfect?

So... you didnt change a word... you didnt correct any spellings... just EXACTLY what did you do?

I didn't change any words or spellings.

This is what I did:

I critically resolved copy-editorial issues and made sure there was a "edito exemplaris" with no typographical error.

Huh?

That's as clear as mud.

 

[Ransom]

I pretty certain that he at least made word choice between various Cambridge editions.  He can say that the didn't change "spelling" and only fixed "typographical" errors....

If he were doing actual copyediting, he would have an author's manuscript, which he would be editing for spelling, word choice, punctuation, style, and fact.

Since he allegedly worked with multiple biblical texts, then presumably it was done multiple-choice, as it were, but otherwise it is no different. Choices had to be made that judged one biblical text to be superior to another in one place or other.

I think he knows he's not being entirely honest.

Printing errors that aren't errors! Inerrant texts that contain errors! Copies of the KJV that are without error, but still need to be copyedited into one "pure" text!

Yeah, BP is a bundle of contradictions. There's no way anyone can be that inconsistent on such a wide range of things without being pretty dishonest. But hey, he has an "apostolic mandate," so all that wild-eyed irrationality is really God's fault, right?

 

[FSSL]

What electronic text did Bibleprotector use to edit?

 

[praise_yeshua]

What electronic text did Bibleprotector use to edit?

I'd just about bet.... you'll never find that one out.

Regardless, He certainly made it "his own". He can pretend all he wants. Nothing will change that fact.....

 

[Citadel of Truth]

I pretty certain that he at least made word choice between various Cambridge editions.  He can say that the didn't change "spelling" and only fixed "typographical" errors....

Allow me to "copy-edit" the above paragraph.

I'm pretty certain that he at least made word choices between various Cambridge editions.  He can say that the didn't change "spelling" and only fixed "typographical" errors....

I mean no offense whatsoever to praise_yeshua; I could have very easily done the same with a paragraph of mine - this one happened to be handy. I am just wondering if this is the type of "copy-editing" that we are talking about here?

 

[bibleprotector]

If he were doing actual copyediting, he would have an author's manuscript, which he would be editing for spelling, word choice, punctuation, style, and fact.

What you are seeking to do is use a particular definition rather than the broad definition. Also, you are seeking to use the technical terms of "copy" and therefore of "proof" in narrow semantic senses. You will say, if it is not a draft, it is not a copy, if it is not a part of the pre-print process, it is not proofing.

Now, let's say that I did copy-edit by your definition, to have the ability to edit for spelling, word choice, punctuation, style, fact and clarity. And having done so, did not change the spelling, but certainly rejected variant spellings, did not change the words, but certainly rejected variant word choices (critically), did not change the punctuation, but certainly rejected variant punctuation, and did not do anything in regards to style or "fact".

You may horse laugh (your own admission) but if you reject the terminology, "copy-edit", you do not allow for any terminology at all. This is the real agenda that you have, to seek either to deny or to attempt to shake all credibility.

 

[bibleprotector]

What electronic text did Bibleprotector use to edit?

I used multiple electronic texts and compared them together, so not one single one. And by checking differences against multiple printed copies, all typographical errors were eliminated.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What electronic text did Bibleprotector use to edit?

I used multiple electronic texts and compared them together, so not one single one. And by checking differences against multiple printed copies, all typographical errors were eliminated.

You're a HOOT....

Did you ever have to make a word choice where  these "copies" differed in the word used?

 

[Ransom]

Now, let's say that I did copy-edit by your definition, to have the ability to edit for spelling, word choice, punctuation, style, fact and clarity. And having done so, did not change the spelling, but certainly rejected variant spellings, did not change the words, but certainly rejected variant word choices (critically), did not change the punctuation, but certainly rejected variant punctuation, and did not do anything in regards to style or "fact".

OK, you say that. In return, I'll say that I'm going to have another hearty horselaugh at your equivocation and doubletalk.

 

[bibleprotector]

Did you ever have to make a word choice where  these "copies" differed in the word used?

Some non-PCE copies are missing one of the words "and" in Exodus 23:23.

 

[Steven Avery]

Some non-PCE copies are missing one of the words "and" in Exodus 23:23.

And I would conjecture that even if the editions were in the Cambridge tradition that is the base for the PCE, that there might well have been one or more with Gaba or with a capital "S" at 1 John 5:8.  Most editing though, would be of individual quirks that used to occur on any edition. Such would tend to be singular, and could involve a space, or a hyphen, or a misspelling.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

Why conjecture? Why not ask Bibleprotector produce a list of his copy edits?

If I were to buy into the PCE-theory, that would certainly be a starting point.

 

[Steven Avery]

Why conjecture? Why not ask Bibleprotector produce a list of his copy edits? If I were to buy into the PCE-theory, that would certainly be a starting point.

Simple, I really do not see why Bibleprotector would have wasted dozens or hundreds of hours of time on trivia detail of log files of every edition and change and difference and this and that?  Are you confusing him with Rick Norris?

Steven

 

[Ransom]

Are you confusing him with Rick Norris?

No reasonable person would make the mistake of mistaking bibleprotector, or for that matter any KJV-onlyist, with someone who documents his research.