What is "proper copy editing?"

[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.

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

If one takes on the task of copy editing Scripture, then it is a good thing to at least make a notation of the more significant items. We have none. We are supposed to just accept his word.

 

[bibleprotector]

If one takes on the task of copy editing Scripture, then it is a good thing to at least make a notation of the more significant items. We have none. We are supposed to just accept his word.

This is the worst sort of wishful thinking. My website is replete with information, such as just some basic information at www.bibleprotector.com/editions and you would have none. You will accept no word but that of your own selves.

 

[FSSL]

Everytime you send us to your website, you link us to something that does not answer the question...

How about a chart of the modifications you adopted from other CAMBRIDGE editions.

 

[bibleprotector]

Everytime you send us to your website, you link us to something that does not answer the question...

How about a chart of the modifications you adopted from other CAMBRIDGE editions.

Your question contains incorrect assumptions. The proper editing I did was only to conform to the Pure Cambridge Edition, and therefore not "modification" nor "adopting" anything, nor taking something from "other" Cambridge editions, since it was conformity to one Cambridge Edition which has been published numerous times.

 

[Ransom]

Your question contains incorrect assumptions. The proper editing I did was only to conform to the Pure Cambridge Edition, and therefore not "modification" nor "adopting" anything, nor taking something from "other" Cambridge editions, since it was conformity to one Cambridge Edition which has been published numerous times.

Good grief.

Either you collated multiple texts into the so-called "Pure" Cambridge Edition, or you didn't, in which case you merely republished someone else's edition.

So which is it? Stop playing the slippery eel.

 

[bibleprotector]

Good grief.

Either you collated multiple texts into the so-called "Pure" Cambridge Edition, or you didn't, in which case you merely republished someone else's edition.

So which is it? Stop playing the slippery eel.

You falsely attribute slipperiness where none exists. I have over and again answered very straightly, plus have all information on my website. But all you wish to see is deception and all you desire to do is cast aspersions, mock and accuse.

I'll answer again, nevertheless. This is what I did: I took multiple electronic files of the KJB, mainly the PCE, and I compared them together. At every place, I checked against several printed copies of the PCE from Cambridge, and also from Collins. This meant arriving at an electronic text of the PCE which was free from all typographical errors.

The Pure Cambridge Edition was printed by Cambridge University Press since the early 20th century. It is still printed by other publishers in the present day. This is considered the standard Edition of the KJB. The text file of the KJB PCE has been published by me with absolutely certainly 100% typographical accuracy.

Not only is this a proper process, but I have been clear on this. And anyone can check the PCE files from my website against printed or other file editions too, there's nothing hidden, evasive or secret about it.

 

[subllibrm]

Good grief.

Either you collated multiple texts into the so-called "Pure" Cambridge Edition, or you didn't, in which case you merely republished someone else's edition.

So which is it? Stop playing the slippery eel.

You falsely attribute slipperiness where none exists. I have over and again answered very straightly, plus have all information on my website. But all you wish to see is deception and all you desire to do is cast aspersions, mock and accuse.

I'll answer again, nevertheless. This is what I did: I took multiple electronic files of the KJB, mainly the PCE, and I compared them together. At every place, I checked against several printed copies of the PCE from Cambridge, and also from Collins. This meant arriving at an electronic text of the PCE which was free from all typographical errors.

The Pure Cambridge Edition was printed by Cambridge University Press since the early 20th century. It is still printed by other publishers in the present day. This is considered the standard Edition of the KJB. The text file of the KJB PCE has been published by me with absolutely certainly 100% typographical accuracy.

Not only is this a proper process, but I have been clear on this. And anyone can check the PCE files from my website against printed or other file editions too, there's nothing hidden, evasive or secret about it.

Let me ask a question please.

When you make these comparisons and find a variance (for example, one has a comma and one doesn't) how do you decide which one is the correct rendering?

 

[FSSL]

Good grief.

Either you collated multiple texts into the so-called "Pure" Cambridge Edition, or you didn't, in which case you merely republished someone else's edition.

So which is it? Stop playing the slippery eel.

You falsely attribute slipperiness where none exists. I have over and again answered very straightly, plus have all information on my website. But all you wish to see is deception and all you desire to do is cast aspersions, mock and accuse.

I'll answer again, nevertheless. This is what I did: I took multiple electronic files of the KJB, mainly the PCE, and I compared them together. At every place, I checked against several printed copies of the PCE from Cambridge, and also from Collins. This meant arriving at an electronic text of the PCE which was free from all typographical errors.

The Pure Cambridge Edition was printed by Cambridge University Press since the early 20th century. It is still printed by other publishers in the present day. This is considered the standard Edition of the KJB. The text file of the KJB PCE has been published by me with absolutely certainly 100% typographical accuracy.

Not only is this a proper process, but I have been clear on this. And anyone can check the PCE files from my website against printed or other file editions too, there's nothing hidden, evasive or secret about it.

Multiple texts.
Over 3/4 of a million words in each text
A twenty-something man scours each text and makes edits.
This young man claims he got it 100% correct.
Now... this thirty-something person is shown problems and inconsistencies and continues to claim it is 100% free from even the smallest error in punctuation amd capitalization.

What's next? The shroud of Turin was legit?

 

[FSSL]

Good grief.

Either you collated multiple texts into the so-called "Pure" Cambridge Edition, or you didn't, in which case you merely republished someone else's edition.

So which is it? Stop playing the slippery eel.

You falsely attribute slipperiness where none exists. I have over and again answered very straightly, plus have all information on my website. But all you wish to see is deception and all you desire to do is cast aspersions, mock and accuse.

I'll answer again, nevertheless. This is what I did: I took multiple electronic files of the KJB, mainly the PCE, and I compared them together. At every place, I checked against several printed copies of the PCE from Cambridge, and also from Collins. This meant arriving at an electronic text of the PCE which was free from all typographical errors.

The Pure Cambridge Edition was printed by Cambridge University Press since the early 20th century. It is still printed by other publishers in the present day. This is considered the standard Edition of the KJB. The text file of the KJB PCE has been published by me with absolutely certainly 100% typographical accuracy.

Not only is this a proper process, but I have been clear on this. And anyone can check the PCE files from my website against printed or other file editions too, there's nothing hidden, evasive or secret about it.

Let me ask a question please.

When you make these comparisons and find a variance (for example, one has a comma and one doesn't) how do you decide which one is the correct rendering?

yep! excellent question...

 

[bibleprotector]

Let me ask a question please.

When you make these comparisons and find a variance (for example, one has a comma and one doesn't) how do you decide which one is the correct rendering?

As I said, I compared to multiple printed copies of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

 

[bibleprotector]

Multiple texts.

The definition of the word "texts" here simply means, electronic files.

Over 3/4 of a million words in each text

Computer checking two texts together shows any divergence at any place in either one. If you do it in pairs multiple times, and collate the pairs together, you eventually eliminate all typographical errors. Particularly if you use many texts and compare to multiple printed editions.

A twenty-something man scours each text and makes edits.

A computerised comparison, manual checking, do it for a few years.

This young man claims he got it 100% correct.

Freedom from typographical errors is technically possible and has been achieved.

This now this thirty-something person is shown problems

No problems are shown. Just saying that does not make it a fact. There are simply no typographical errors. No one has shown any because there are none. There's no missing full stop or something. It's all matching exactly the correctly lettered-and-punctuated form what has been published for years by Bible publishers.

and inconsistencies

No such inconsistencies exist. What is in the electronic files is based on what was printed. I haven't forgotten a comma somewhere, or accidental added one in somewhere. That's because I wasn't inventing something, I was just making sure that the electronic file was free from typographical errors.

and continues to claim it is 100% free from even the smallest error in punctuation amd capitalization.

But anyone around the world can honestly check, as you could, and there are no such errors in the file. You are saying as if there is one, without pointing to any supposed examples, because there are none. And we are talking specifically about the Scripture. (I do not claim that my own writing has never had a typographical error, just as we see your "amd" for "and" in the above quote. In my own writing, I spell "capitalisation" not "capitalization" too.)

 

[FSSL]

Did you choose on the basis of majority readings? Or were there other factors?

 

[bibleprotector]

What's next? The shroud of Turin was legit?

You seem to be confusing facts with superstitions. Are you that hardened in your rejection of editing, copy-editing or proofreading that you are willing to say that carefully getting a computer file to absolute accuracy in comparison with multiple sources is a farce?

 

[bibleprotector]

Did you choose on the basis of majority readings? Or were there other factors?

Your question is inappropriately worded. As a person who has performed intra-Editional textual criticism, I can tell you that the variations are very slight. It should be obvious to you that when 1 of 8 electronic texts does not have a comma, and that multiple printed copies have a comma, that the comma belongs.

Sometime in the 1980s, Robert A. Kraft of the University of Pennsylvania created an electronic copy of the King James Bible, perhaps obtaining it from Brigham Young University Humanities Research Center. The text used the Pure Cambridge Edition, which electronic text was afterward electronically converted by John Price-Wilkin and David Seaman, made available through the Oxford Text Archive, the University of Michigan Humanities Text Initiative, and other sources.

This particular text is peculiar for its rendering of Genesis 2:21, where it says, “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs”. The University of Virginia copy omits the comma between Adam, any imitator of this text may be quickly identified back to this source of “Adam’s missing comma”. Of course, there are other typographical errors also apparent in this text.

In 1989 a comparison was done between “Adam’s missing comma text”, by some people at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as recorded in their Athena database, which listed numerous places of difference between “Adam’s missing comma” PCE and another KJB, which added the word “and” before the word “after” in Genesis 5:3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image”.

 

[Ransom]

Let me ask a question please.

When you make these comparisons and find a variance (for example, one has a comma and one doesn't) how do you decide which one is the correct rendering?

As I said, I compared to multiple printed copies of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

That's not an answer to the question that he asked. Subllibrm asked how, not what, you did.

Don't try to tell me that you are answering questions "straightly" when you post such transparent evasions as this. You are simply being slippery and dishonest. Nothing more.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Did you choose on the basis of majority readings? Or were there other factors?

Your question is inappropriately worded. As a person who has performed intra-Editional textual criticism, the variations are very slight. It should be obvious to you that when 1 of 8 electronic texts does not have a comma, and that multiple printed copies have a comma, that the comma belongs.

Sometime in the 1980s, Robert A. Kraft of the University of Pennsylvania created an electronic copy of the King James Bible, perhaps obtaining it from Brigham Young University Humanities Research Center. The text used the Pure Cambridge Edition, which electronic text was afterward electronically converted by John Price-Wilkin and David Seaman, made available through the Oxford Text Archive, the University of Michigan Humanities Text Initiative, and other sources.

This particular text is peculiar for its rendering of Genesis 2:21, where it says, “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs”. The University of Virginia copy omits the comma between Adam, any imitator of this text may be quickly identified back to this source of “Adam’s missing comma”. Of course, there are other typographical errors also apparent in this text.

In 1989 a comparison was done between “Adam’s missing comma text”, by some people at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as recorded in their Athena database, which listed numerous places of difference between “Adam’s missing comma” PCE and another KJB, which added the word “and” before the word “after” in Genesis 5:3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image”.

1. How did you go about doing the electronic comparison? Did you use a tool like "UltraCompare"?
2. Did you just restrict you comparison to an ASCII comparison or did you also do a HEX compare?
3. Did you also do this electronic comparison on a DOS or Linux file types?
4. Did you only address the printed copy comparison when you found an anomaly in the electronic text or did you go line by line with some supposed "perfect printed copy"?

If done right, I know this is a massive undertaking. I have often thought of doing similar work in producing a OT text incorporating the best Old Greek and Hebrew texts. Just haven't had the time and I know the difficulty of the task. Even if I do this someday, I would never claim I had done a "perfect" job. Even with modern advance in computers, its an overwhelming task for someone to take upon themselves.

 

[bibleprotector]

That's not an answer to the question that he asked. Subllibrm asked how, not what, you did.

How? I used my God given mind to see what was an error or not by seeing that all kinds of printed copies had the thing which some electronic file erred with, like a copyist's error. After all, it is logical in textual criticism to understand that when using either the keyboard method or OCR technology, that one person could miss a comma. However, even natural reasoning says that it would be impossible for EVERYONE to miss the same comma at the same place.

Don't try to tell me that you are answering questions "straightly" when you post such transparent evasions as this. You are simply being slippery and dishonest. Nothing more.

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

 

[bibleprotector]

1. How did you go about doing the electronic comparison? Did you use a tool like "UltraCompare"?

I have detailed the methods on my website. But since you ask, as no one has before asked, I'll explain: I used Microsoft Word 2003 Compare and Merge Document function with ASCII/TEXT, RTF and Word doc files.

2. Did you just restrict you comparison to an ASCII comparison or did you also do a HEX compare?

Yes in ASCII initially, HEX was not necessary, because the master was being done in Word with Word formatting (small caps, italics, etc).

3. Did you also do this electronic comparison on a DOS or Linux file types?

All were text files in TXT, RTF or DOC (2003) format.

4. Did you only address the printed copy comparison when you found an anomaly in the electronic text or did you go line by line with some supposed "perfect printed copy"?

I addressed every difference between the files by examining multiple print copies, I used a number, but always at least three to four ones, plus often looked at an Oxford etc. too.

If done right, I know this is a massive undertaking.

It was. But it is there for any to check, and they have. Occasionally a person might ask something, like, Why 'alway' instead of 'always'? or something, but that's the KJB, not an Edition nor a typographical issue, and that's not a mistake.

 

[FSSL]

It takes that kind of mentality to believe you did produce the 1st and only error-free Bible since the autographs.

Besides... you still have capitalization errors regarding "Spirit" and you won't correct those. You just defend your error.

It's a hard sell... but I am sure you'll find a person here and there to convince.

 

[bibleprotector]

Besides... you still have capitalization errors regarding "Spirit" and you won't correct those.

Your accusation is absolutely false and completely dishonest.

The Pure Cambridge Edition has the word "spirit" in lower case at 1 John 5:8, as do plenty of old editions (already in the seventeenth century).

All the printed copies of the PCE have it so. That's scores of different editions/impressions (i.e. different printed formats and sizes) from the beginning of the twentieth century. Obviously, that is not a typographical error.

So, if I were to compare electronic texts together, and compare with the PCE plus other editions, there is no way that the word "spirit" would be changed, because it is not a typographical error WITHIN the PCE.

It's a hard sell... but I am sure you'll find a person here and there to convince.

Are you so blind, hardened and dishonest to suggest that my file does not reflect what is in the printed copies in regards to the word "spirit"?

Anyone reading this should see what nature and spirit my work is of in comparison to the devilry of those against it.