What is "proper copy editing?"

[FSSL]

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

The "devil" is in the details... Joel 2:28 contradicts Acts 2:17: Same "Spirit" different capitalization.

 

[subllibrm]

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.

Yes you did. That does not answer the question I asked.

 

[bibleprotector]

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

The "devil" is in the details... Joel 2:28 contradicts Acts 2:17: Same "Spirit" different capitalization.

The fact is that my file shows exactly what is in the printed copies, and that mine is without typographical error.

The issue you are talking about is in an entirely different realm.

Let's look here at the different scale of the areas of inquiry:

1. Scripture.
2. Version.
3. Translation.
4. Edition.
5. Setting.

Well, the setting has "spirit" in Joel 2:28 because that matches what is in the Edition. So, my file is exact and correct.

But you will not concede this reality. Why is that?

 

[bibleprotector]

Yes you did. That does not answer the question I asked.

I have answered that many times. In normal understanding, a typographical error might be defined as such where it is unique to one copy or set of printing plates, and particularly when can be shown to be the result of one of the causes of corruption. Where one is missing a comma where all others have one is pretty obvious. And typographical errors are discernible anyway, for example, "mightv" instead of "mighty".

 

[subllibrm]

Well, the setting has "spirit" in Joel 2:28 because that matches what is in the Edition. So, my file is exact and correct.

But you will not concede this reality. Why is that?

So if I understand you correctly, you have made the perfect rendition of the KJV by ensuring that original discrepancies (errors to some) were included without any typographical error.

FSSL's point about the capitalization has to do with your key for identifying errors (the proper use of "S" in spirit) inother versions/translations. It is your own rule that is violated by the text he is referring to. So either your rule is wrong or the KJV is wrong. It can't be both (or neither).

 

[bibleprotector]

So if I understand you correctly, you have made the perfect rendition of the KJV by ensuring that original discrepancies (errors to some) were included without any typographical error.

Your disagreement with the KJB or with some editions of it should not cause you to reject the reality that my file accurately and fully has what the KJB has, and what the Pure Cambridge Edition has.

FSSL's point about the capitalization has to do with your key for identifying errors (the proper use of "S" in spirit) inother versions/translations.

Wrong. Now we are on a different topic:
The KJB is Scripture.
Its readings are correct.
Its translation is correct.

There are different editions of the KJB. Some have a capital "S" on "Spirit" in some places, and others have a lowercase "s" on "spirit", and there are variations in the editions on these kinds of things.

So, as far as editions go, which is to say, the proper editing, there is an exact correctness as to when it should be lowercase or capital.

And this correct rendering is found in the Pure Cambridge Edition.

(Now, as a helpful thing, you can get a typographically exact copy of the PCE from my website.)

So, quite simply, the PCE is right in every place, where it is "Spirit" or where it is "spirit".

It is your own rule that is violated by the text he is referring to.

Incorrect. No rule was stated. But the rule is that what is at one place is not identical with the other. This is clear, for the Bible says in one place, "my spirit", but in the other "of my Spirit". That word "of" is making a conceptual difference, which of course matches the difference of meaning of "spirit" and "Spirit".

So either your rule is wrong or the KJV is wrong.

What rule? The KJB is right. Some editions get it wrong, of course. So you need the right Edition. And I recommend getting the right Edition which has been accurately typeset, you can get a pdf of it on my website.

It can't be both (or neither).

The Bible is to be rightly divided, something which false assumptions or simple-minded approaches (and those looking for apparent contradictions) cannot see. It is deliberately and rightly "Spirit" in Peter's preaching in Acts as much as it is purposely and properly "spirit" in Joel.

 

[praise_yeshua]

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.

Using this method, what was your false positive rate? What generated the false positives?

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

Did you also compare CR LF? I would think this would be important.

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

ASCII text files can vary across DOS and Linux file types. I know. I deal with it at times. Part of job involves EDI. If you've ever dealt with EDI documents, you know the importance of identifying the smallest variables.

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.

This is were you lose me in the "perfection" department. Even if you're technically capable of programmatically identifying electronic variances..... the job of comparing "line by line"... word for word.... takes a tons of time. Did anyone double check you're work?

Did you ever prefer an Oxford rendering?

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.

BY what standard did you determine the fact of "that the KJB"? Did you ultimately use a 1611 print copy?

 

[bibleprotector]

Using this method, what was your false positive rate? What generated the false positives?

Simply, every place where, in ASCII formatting any two texts agree, would come up. Because both of these texts could be checked with a third one independently, it means that every place was in fact checked against multiple printed copies again and again. The merge document function lets you see both in colour usages, and "go to" the next difference.

Did you also compare CR LF? I would think this would be important.

Word uses paragraph marks for hard returns. Word has ways to find any formatting. Characters themselves were checked, including apostrophes, etc.

ASCII text files can vary across DOS and Linux file types. I know. I deal with it at times. Part of job involves EDI. If you've ever dealt with EDI documents, you know the importance of identifying the smallest variables.

God has providentially favoured MS DOS over Linux ... Linux was not used.

This is were you lose me in the "perfection" department. Even if you're technically capable of programmatically identifying electronic variances..... the job of comparing "line by line"... word for word.... takes a tons of time. Did anyone double check you're work?

Word 2003 finds every place of ASCII difference and even formatting differences, so it is easily possible. And by doing it many times, with different texts, it gets done.

People, I am sure have checked it out. They can use my file, and compare it to others, and see for themselves.

Did you ever prefer an Oxford rendering?

I was following only one Edition as far as conformity, the PCE. That means I didn't follow anything not in the PCE. I just used the Oxford and other editions, including the 1611, to check things out.

BY what standard did you determine the fact of "that the KJB"? Did you ultimately use a 1611 print copy?

"The KJB" means the version and translation. The version and translation are the same in normal editions. What I used for the editorial standard of what is the accurate Edition is the PCE. Consequently, I presented the PCE without a typographical error. This is because you can buy a PCE from a publisher who may have accidentally missed a full stop in that printing.

 

[FSSL]

Well, the setting has "spirit" in Joel 2:28 because that matches what is in the Edition. So, my file is exact and correct. But you will not concede this reality. Why is that?

Accepting the reality of the divinity of the Spirit is of far more significance to me than accepting your self-proclaimed apostolic authority to make copy edits.

You established a test that focuses on proper capitalization of the word "Spirit."

So... according to your own contrived test, your edition denies the divinity in Joel 2.28 and should not be trusted... or... more accurately, you should not be trusted.

 

[bibleprotector]

Did you ultimately use a 1611 print copy?

The "authority" of what is "the" KJB is NOT by making ultimate appeal to the first printed edition of 1611. In editorial terms, the first printing is important, but not to be taken as a sole arbiter of resolving some editorial dispute. There are, in fact, a dozen principles which help in KJB editing. (The kind of editing I refer to here is the editing of editions, like the 1769 Edition.)

1. Scripture
2. Readings
3. Translation
4. Editing (editorial revision), these are referred to as "Editions".
5. Setting (copy-editing), these can be called "impressions" and "editions".

The above paragraph refers to number 4.

 

[bibleprotector]

Well, the setting has "spirit" in Joel 2:28 because that matches what is in the Edition. So, my file is exact and correct. But you will not concede this reality. Why is that?

Accepting the reality of the divinity of the Spirit is of far more significance to me than accepting your self-proclaimed apostolic authority to make copy edits.

You established a test that focuses on proper capitalization of the word "Spirit."

So... according to your own contrived test, your edition denies the divinity in Joel 2.28 and should not be trusted... or... more accurately, you should not be trusted.

You are incorrectly dividing the Word of God. At times, the word "Spirit" should be capitalised when referring to the Holy Ghost. At other times it is properly in lower case "spirit" because it has other meanings.

One of the issues is that modern folks presume that a passage like 1 John 5:8 or Joel 2:28 must specifically mean "the Holy Ghost". But even the context and many other factors shows that such a "rule" is incorrect. The reality is that Joel 2:28 is referring to a spiritual outpouring or work of the Holy Ghost, and His interaction with men, which is specifically identified by the word "spirit". In 1 John 5:8 we find that verse 9 describes it as the witness. The witness is of the Holy Ghost, certainly, but is in the spirit of man. Therefore, the simplistic rule that all such references should be capital "S" is a wrong assumption and (as I said) simplistic.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

I suspect that those who would fight the most against the proper nomenclature and exact usage of the Bible are the Pentecostals, who would want to insist that it always must mean the Person Himself and that narrowly!

 

[bibleprotector]

Accepting the reality of the divinity of the Spirit is of far more significance to me than accepting your self-proclaimed apostolic authority to make copy edits.

Plenty of false accusations there. Not only do I accept the Holy Ghost, but I didn't invent the Pure Cambridge Edition.

You established a test that focuses on proper capitalization of the word "Spirit."

It seems hypocritical of you to complain, who claims to zealously uphold the Holy Ghost. Would you wish that Jesus was led of the spirit into the wilderness instead of the Spirit?

Lu 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

So... according to your own contrived test,

So apparently believers are not to test, but that you insist of "Spirit" not "spirit" is not contrived? Is the Holy Ghost leading you to point out all the places where the Pure Cambridge Edition, which has existed for many years before I was born, is apparently wrong with the word "spirit" in places like Joel 2:28? Or are you claiming not to do so by the Spirit, but by reason?

your edition denies the divinity in Joel 2.28 and should not be trusted...

My edition? You mean, the KJB which has been around for centuries? The Pure Cambridge Edition which has been around since before you or I were born?

or... more accurately, you should not be trusted.

I think you do not trust the KJB, and that this is the real reason why you do not trust me.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Simply, every place where, in ASCII formatting any two texts agree, would come up. Because both of these texts could be checked with a third one independently, it means that every place was in fact checked against multiple printed copies again and again. The merge document function lets you see both in colour usages, and "go to" the next difference.

That's not what I was getting at.....Let me see if I can ask a different way.

Did you encounter spacing issues in the differences? or did you consider spacing?

God has providentially favoured MS DOS over Linux ... Linux was not used.

Are you saying that all the electronic formats were in DOS/Windows? I wouldn't take a majority to = "providence". There are instances in which the KJV incorporated minority readings.

Word 2003 finds every place of ASCII difference and even formatting differences, so it is easily possible. And by doing it many times, with different texts, it gets done.

Did you narrow your work down to say.... the "best" two copies? Or did you just merge to printed copy?

People, I am sure have checked it out. They can use my file, and compare it to others, and see for themselves.

Fair enough.

I was following only one Edition as far as conformity, the PCE. That means I didn't follow anything not in the PCE. I just used the Oxford and other editions, including the 1611, to check things out.

Maybe you've answered this before, but why the preferential treatment to the Parris text? Will you cite "providence" again?

"The KJB" means the version and translation. The version and translation are the same in normal editions. What I used for the editorial standard of what is the accurate Edition is the PCE. Consequently, I presented the PCE without a typographical error. This is because you can buy a PCE from a publisher who may have accidentally missed a full stop in that printing.

I do love the KJV. I prefer it in places. Its not perfect. I doubt your work is perfect. Would you be open to correcting a problem in the future?

Why have you simply focus on typographical issues and not give more thought to the underlying texts themselves? I'm not trying to bash you. I just would like to know.

Whether you realize this or not, there is more "in play" here than just a few punctuations. You've been rather busy in your work to address such.... but why not expand your work? It seems like you've arbitrarily made a choice not to go deeper. Maybe its not arbitrary..... are you fearful at what you might find?

 

[bibleprotector]

Did you encounter spacing issues in the differences? or did you consider spacing?

Yes. Every space, every letter, every punctuation mark.

Are you saying that all the electronic formats were in DOS/Windows? I wouldn't take a majority to = "providence". There are instances in which the KJV incorporated minority readings.

No, providence means what is provided. Windows was provided, other systems who knows where they are.

The PCE has so called minority editings too, like "Geba" in Ezra 2:26.

Did you narrow your work down to say.... the "best" two copies? Or did you just merge to printed copy?

No, I merged copies, and multiple times independently, but eventually had a "good master" which was then able to compare to Oxford editions, etc.

Maybe you've answered this before, but why the preferential treatment to the Parris text? Will you cite "providence" again?

Your question is incorrect. F. S. Parris was a Cambridge editor who worked in the 1740s and 50s. Then Thomas Paris worked on a 1762 Cambridge Edition. In 1769 Blayney published his two edited editions through Oxford. This was corrected slightly over the years. In the early 1830s, Cambridge took on the Oxford Edition (as derived from Blayney), though kept Cambridge spellings in places. Cambridge made a few minor corrections (by Thomas Turton). Somewhere, perhaps in the early 20th century, though potentially as early as the late 1880s, the PCE was made. This in turn was followed in Cambridge printings for many decades.

So, it is really not accurate to say that I preferred the "Parris" text, as that is an inaccurate understanding of the editorial history of the KJB. I "prefer" and use the 20th century Edition known as the Pure Cambridge Edition.

I doubt your work is perfect.

You doubt it, but no example of typographical inaccuracy has been forthcoming or produced.

Would you be open to correcting a problem in the future?

There are no typographical errors in what I produced. Feel free to take five years and check.

Why have you simply focus on typographical issues and not give more thought to the underlying texts themselves? I'm not trying to bash you. I just would like to know.

Typography is something which has to be correct. But after all, I already accepted that we have a perfect Edition, and I already accepted that we have a perfect Text and Translation. So of course I don't think that any "underlying text" needs to be looked at, because I think the KJB is completely perfect.

Whether you realize this or not, there is more "in play" here than just a few punctuations. You've been rather busy in your work to address such.... but why not expand your work? It seems like you've arbitrarily made a choice not to go deeper. Maybe its not arbitrary..... are you fearful at what you might find?

No, I am very confident that the typography is correct, and also that the Edition is correct, and also that the translation is correct, and also that the readings are correct, and (of course) that the Scripture is correct.

The beginning point for all such inquiry is the teaching of Scripture itself. Modern versionists and Textus Receptus folks make wrong assumptions and mistakes already in regards to considering that the Greek New Testament is of superior authority. But this is not so.

I know it seems arbitrary to you, but then, the Scripture says,

Isa 28:20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

As long as a rationalistic methodology reigns supreme in your approach, you will not be able to understand how it is that we have a perfect Bible. You will always make something unreal (e.g. imaginary original autographs) as a standard of perfection rather than believing that God has something tangibly right now that is perfect (modernistic theology is geared against such views, except if it is humanistic.)

 

[FSSL]

The reality is that Joel 2:28 is referring to a spiritual outpouring or work of the Holy Ghost, and His interaction with men, which is specifically identified by the word "spirit".

This is why you cannot trust the KJVO with Bible interpretation. Joel is referring to the PERSON of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2.17 "Spirit" is a quote of Joel 2:28 "spirit." Your absurdity, while amusing, shows how desperate your position has become.

 

[bibleprotector]

Joel is referring to the PERSON of the Holy Spirit.

Joel specifically was referring to the working and nature called spirit, which is of the Holy Ghost.

Those who approach Scripture with their own a priori ideas or Hebrew interdiction are potentially straying from the proper sense. This example is a classic one of where someone's zeal for one correct doctrine (i.e. the Personhood of the Third Member of the Trinity) overweighs and actually forces the Bible to say something which it doesn't say at this place.

Acts 2.17 "Spirit" is a quote of Joel 2:28 "spirit."

Actually the NT varies from the literal letter of the OT in virtually all quotes in the NT, and supplies, in its variations, complementary and/or further information. So while Peter was quoting Joel, we find in the written inspiration that the NT is taking the passage from Joel with a specific application or interpretation.

Given that the passage in Joel, like many other Bible Scriptures, have a double "sense", and certain prophecies have several fulfilments, it follows that the passage in Joel in fact does not have a restricted fulfilment with Acts, but points to a future time of the outpouring of what Joel calls "spirit", which, in context means spiritual openness and signs and wonders.

The problem that the modernist has in superimposing "Spirit" onto Joel is that they lose the vital understanding that the spiritually working and an openness of heart is intended. No honest and good Christian is saying that that is not of the Holy Ghost. It is also false to imply that somehow we must be Trinty-underminers by not simplemindedly and so brashly putting capital "S" every single time we see "spirit".

 

[FSSL]

Joel specifically was referring to the working and nature called spirit, which is of the Holy Ghost.

Joel says, " I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh..."

... and there we are. "My spirit." Not the "works of my spirit..." simply... "my spirit."

If you cannot understand plain English, you have no credibility to suggest you can do proper copy editing.

 

[bibleprotector]

Joel says, " I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh..."

... and there we are. "My spirit." Not the "works of my spirit..." simply... "my spirit."

The spirit of God is the operation, working, nature and condition of the Spirit as related to the hearts of men (e.g. spiritual knowledge). You are simply trying to read in "the person of the Holy Ghost" without understanding the exactness of meaning of words used.

If you cannot understand plain English

It is you who does not understand, because you are trying to make "spirit" = "Spirit", but they are different.

you have no credibility to suggest you can do proper copy editing.

And you would wish it so, even though such a statement is non sequitur. That's like saying "if you can't spell, we can't trust your theology", or something equally ridiculous.

 

[FSSL]

Hogwash.

 

[rsc2a]

Clearly Peter was an idiot.