What is "proper copy editing?"

[subllibrm]

FSSL, didn't this whole thing start a while back when you noted that BP violates his own rule regarding the "S" in Spirit? I can't find the thread but I am sure that was one of the tell tale signs on his list of clues to bad scripture.

 

[bibleprotector]

FSSL, didn't this whole thing start a while back when you noted that BP violates his own rule regarding the "S" in Spirit? I can't find the thread but I am sure that was one of the tell tale signs on his list of clues to bad scripture.

The fact is that the electronic file that I have supplied matches exactly what is witnessed to in the printed Bibles means that I have done a proper job in copy editing.

As for the separate issue of which Edition of the King James Bible is correct, it is the Pure Cambridge Edition. There is no issue there.

It seems that those who are against the King James Bible's perfection are so addled, so confused, that they imagine things which simply do not exist. For example, here we see reference to some imaginary "violates his own rule", something of which there is no documented evidence of, besides of course being untrue anyway.

 

[FSSL]

FSSL, didn't this whole thing start a while back when you noted that BP violates his own rule regarding the "S" in Spirit? I can't find the thread but I am sure that was one of the tell tale signs on his list of clues to bad scripture.

Yes. There are three ways that this issue could have resolved.

1) Admit that the KJV still has inconsistencies related to capitalization.

2) Construct an interpretational scheme on the idea that whenever a small "s" is used it is not the person of the Spirit.

Since the PRIORITY of the KJVO lies in matters related to capitalization, instead of a proper view of God, they would never be satisfied with the first option.

 

[bibleprotector]

Yes. There are three ways that this issue could have resolved.

Here is the third way:

3) There is no issue, the King James Bible deliberately contains the word "spirit" with a lowercase "s", which in certain usages refers to the working and effects of the Holy Ghost.

 

[FSSL]

That falls under my 2nd option.

 

[bibleprotector]

Since the PRIORITY of the KJVO lies in matters related to capitalization, instead of a proper view of God

This is incorrect. A proper view of God, a truly full view, is based on understanding His exact written revelation known as the Holy Scriptures.

 

[bibleprotector]

That falls under my 2nd option.

Your second option falsely implies that the Person of the Spirit is actually really limitedly meant in those places, and that the person who accepts the greater amount of accurate information as communicated by the KJB apparently is a Holy Ghost-underminer.

 

[FSSL]

That falls under my 2nd option.

Your second option falsely implies that the Person of the Spirit is actually really limitedly meant in those places, and that the person who accepts the greater amount of accurate information as communicated by the KJB apparently is a Holy Ghost-underminer.

Since Joel does not say "work or acts" of the Holy Spirit
Since Peter ALSO said this is the Holy Spirit
... who is limiting the Scripture? You are by your strained interpretation that requires many more words to disavow that Joel is speaking of the Holy Spirit.

 

[praise_yeshua]

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.

You're straining "at" a gnat!!!

You're preferring the Parris text "spelling"... in "places"? You know that the Cambridge Editions of the era are generally referred to as the "Parris" text. This is accurate and you're "straining at" the information to form you're own stream.

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

Not going to do it. Not worth it to me. If you would share you exact method and files you used, I... MIGHT...... check you merging work.

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.

Fair enough. Everyone has a right to be wrong....

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.)

You have a problem that's common among KJVOist. I happen to believe that..... belief in the Scriptures is "rational". That "faith" isn't "BLIND". That "faith" and "reason" aren't divided. The more I learn, the more reasonable the Truth becomes. I see things for what they ARE... I don't have to "blindly believe" much of anything. You ALL seem to believe that you can just believe something and demand that everyone else believe it..... just like you do. I'd rather rationally build a case for a belief  and then leave man to do what he wants to do with the Truth.

 

[bibleprotector]

Since Joel does not say "work or acts" of the Holy Spirit

He doesn't need to, he just says "spirit".

Since Peter ALSO said this is the Holy Spirit

Verbatim, he didn't, he said, "of my Spirit".

... who is limiting the Scripture?

You are, with your narrow definitions and imperfect meanings.

You are by your strained interpretation that requires many more words to disavow that Joel is speaking of the Holy Spirit.

Joel was speaking of the Holy Ghost, so you are wrong to accuse otherwise, after all, even you knew this was not the case, because you refuted my actual position as not actually denying the Holy Ghost,

Joel does not say "work or acts" of the Holy Spirit

 

[bibleprotector]

You know that the Cambridge Editions of the era are generally referred to as the "Parris" text.

I do not know that it is at all, and it is not referred to as such.

This is accurate

So you say, but then there are ignoramuses who claim that today's Cambridge Edition is the 1762.

You have a problem that's common among KJVOist. I happen to believe that..... belief in the Scriptures is "rational". That "faith" isn't "BLIND". That "faith" and "reason" aren't divided. The more I learn, the more reasonable the Truth becomes. I see things for what they ARE... I don't have to "blindly believe" much of anything. You ALL seem to believe that you can just believe something and demand that everyone else believe it..... just like you do. I'd rather rationally build a case for a belief  and then leave man to do what he wants to do with the Truth.

The problem with your position is that it calls the reasonable faith position "fideist", and makes your rationalist position "faith". You accuse those who believe the KJB as correct as "blind" while you assert rationalistic criteria about why the KJB is wrong. You think that your rationalistic acknowledging of what is seen is right. But walking by what is seen is both unbelief and foolish. By seen, I mean, carnally seen and carnally said to be so because carnal men in their carnal judgment say it is so.

Meanwhile the truth exists, while the rationalists chase their tails in another parallel universe, discussing textual critical issues and wrenching themselves over NA-28.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The problem with your position is that it calls the reasonable faith position "fideist", and makes your rationalist position "faith".

You need to explain this more.... Are you advocating "fidesm"?

I'll remind you of Moses....

Heb 11:27  By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

Faith causes us to "see". Faith isn't an enemy of reason. Faith opens up our eyes to the see the invisible. Faith isn't unreasonable....

You accuse those who believe the KJB as correct as "blind" while you assert rationalistic criteria about why the KJB is wrong. You think that your rationalistic acknowledging of what is seen is right. But walking by what is seen is both unbelief and foolish. By seen, I mean, carnally seen and carnally said to be so because carnal men in their carnal judgment say it is so.

I never said you were blind and you're the one saying I'm carnal.

Meanwhile the truth exists, while the rationalists chase their tails in another parallel universe, discussing textual critical issues and wrenching themselves over NA-28.

I don't worship the NA-28. I don't believe its perfect. I do believe it has something to say about the issue at hand. You're the one refusing to even consider anything it has to say.

 

[bibleprotector]

You need to explain this more.... Are you advocating "fidesm"?

That's what rationalists call Bible believers, and falsely.

I'll remind you of Moses....

Heb 11:27  By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

Faith causes us to "see". Faith isn't an enemy of reason. Faith opens up our eyes to the see the invisible. Faith isn't unreasonable....

Except that you are allowing a rationalistic or Enlightenment view as colouring or informing your views. That's not faith. Faith is reasonable. Your view is not faith.

I never said you were blind and you're the one saying I'm carnal.

Since you are taking a view which takes in rationalistic or Enlightenment influence, that is carnal. Consequently, your approach must be at least part carnal.

Note, it is your side, perhaps not you individually, who calls KJBO blind for not being rank doubters and adherents of the NA-28 like they are.

I don't worship the NA-28. I don't believe its perfect. I do believe it has something to say about the issue at hand. You're the one refusing to even consider anything it has to say.

I refuse to allow the rationalistic and unbelieving interpretation of information to get in the way. I am not against the data contained in the NA-28, I am against the misinterpretation of information, and use of such information to trump Biblical truth.

Let me say it another way: I begin from what the Scripture says about itself. Modern versionists begin from what they observe (empiricism) and what they rationalise (rationalism). These are two opposing approaches: one is Scripture based and one is tainted with unbelief. The Scriptural approach sees perfection, the unbelieving approach sees doubt and error.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Except that you are allowing a rationalistic or Enlightenment view as colouring or informing your views. That's not faith. Faith is reasonable. Your view is not faith.

Your faith expects me to ignore OBVIOUS errors. That's not faith. Faith is pure. Faith is reasonable. For all your study of the KJV do you not remember these words?

Isa 1:18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:

Since you are taking a view which takes in rationalistic or Enlightenment influence, that is carnal. Consequently, your approach must be at least part carnal.

Get a grip man.... I've advocated no such thing. You're the one that expects others to "Blindly" follow the KJV and ignore the obvious issues. If you think this is "spiritual"... then you're the one with the problem.

I refuse to allow the rationalistic and unbelieving interpretation of information to get in the way. I am not against the data contained in the NA-28, I am against the misinterpretation of information, and use of such information to trump Biblical truth.

Let me say it another way: I begin from what the Scripture says about itself. Modern versionists begin from what they observe (empiricism) and what they rationalise (rationalism). These are two opposing approaches: one is Scripture based and one is tainted with unbelief. The Scriptural approach sees perfection, the unbelieving approach sees doubt and error.

Error of fact.... isn't Godly. Its not "Spiritual" to blindly choose one version to "rule them all" in the name of "proper faith". Its ridiculous.

 

[subllibrm]

Its ridiculous.

Not to mention arbitrary.

 

[bibleprotector]

Your faith expects me to ignore OBVIOUS errors.

There are no errors, obvious or otherwise.

The problem is your set of assumptions and methodology by which you detect supposed errors.

Instead of believing what the Scripture says about itself, you are following a view influenced by modern infidelity which sees errors.

Isa 1:18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:

It is reason versus modern infidelity (rationalism, men professing themselves to be wise, etc.). Those influenced by empiricism and/or rationalism, etc., claim to be of "reason", and quite willingly use the Scripture word "reason" out of context to mean their carnal, man made (and devilish) thoughts.

Godly reason says that God is right, that His promises of us having His Word are true, and that His work is right. The opposite view, such as is behind those who are ever learning and always doubting and looking to new scholarship and NA-28 are linking to the spirit of the world, basically to lies. They say that human existence dictates that errors are inevitable and that entropy prevails. They act is if there is no God in their textual critical methodology, and that it is purely a human endeavour to try to recover as near as possibly what God had the original authors first write.

Get a grip man.... I've advocated no such thing. You're the one that expects others to "Blindly" follow the KJV and ignore the obvious issues. If you think this is "spiritual"... then you're the one with the problem.

This response is indicative of one who has been influenced by Enlightenment thinking. Anti-perfectionists say that "reality" trumps truth. They say that errors are obvious, and detect them all over the place in God's Word. They indicate that unless one follows the principles of modern infidelity to some degree, then one has a problem.

Allow me to show how your view is deistic. Your side believes that God inspired inerrent autographs. But you also believe that God did not fully keep His words, rather, you believe that naturalistic processes outworked, and that you supply equally naturalistic solutions to these problems, in order to as best as possible both recover the autographical text, and also to render it meaningfully (via certain translation methods) to a contemporary audience. (Further than this is also the false hermeneutic which views great gulfs of thought, culture, mindset, worldview between what the Bible says and how people think today, like as if God was not able to communicate properly to us by His words, but only to the first audience, and basically assuming that the Holy Ghost is not able to give proper comprehensibility today.)

Error of fact.... isn't Godly. Its not "Spiritual" to blindly choose one version to "rule them all" in the name of "proper faith". Its ridiculous.

There is no arbitrary, random, mindless advocating that the KJB is perfect, but what is based on proper understanding of Scripture, what is in line with the Holy Ghost, what can be properly understood and reasoned based on external evidence (like Divine Providence) and what is witnessed to by Bible believers who are genuine and against modernistic infidelity.

A rationalist-influenced person will scoff at the KJB's perfection by implying it is fantasy/superstition, such as the quip about the one to rule them all. True faith is always derided by anti-supernaturalists in such manners as can be read in the above.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There are no errors, obvious or otherwise.

Sure there are. I can name several. Care to deal with each one individually? I'll be glad to participate if you will openly commit to see it through and not run away?

It is reason versus modern infidelity (rationalism, men professing themselves to be wise, etc.). Those influenced by empiricism and/or rationalism, etc., claim to be of "reason", and quite willingly use the Scripture word "reason" out of context to mean their carnal, man made (and devilish) thoughts.

Are you saying I have "devilish thoughts"?

Godly reason says that God is right, that His promises of us having His Word are true, and that His work is right. The opposite view, such as is behind those who are ever learning and always doubting and looking to new scholarship and NA-28 are linking to the spirit of the world, basically to lies. They say that human existence dictates that errors are inevitable and that entropy prevails. They act is if there is no God in their textual critical methodology, and that it is purely a human endeavour to try to recover as near as possibly what God had the original authors first write.

You're discrediting the work of God by claiming the work of few translators in the early part of the 17th century produced a perfect English translation of the Scriptures. Their work... wasn't perfect. Not even close. I don't associate imperfect with the Godhead. You do. I don't. I haven't said anything about entropy. I have mentioned apostasy in other threads. I'd be glad to reasonably discuss it.

This response is indicative of one who has been influenced by Enlightenment thinking. Anti-perfectionists say that "reality" trumps truth. They say that errors are obvious, and detect them all over the place in God's Word. They indicate that unless one follows the principles of modern infidelity to some degree, then one has a problem.

No. I never said realty trumps truth. Truth is Divine. If comes down from above.... Yet, Truth exists in this reality. It exists by the very Hand of God. It exists in laws of cause and effect. It exists in reason based on "precept upon precept".... Do you remember those words in all your studies? They are at the very core of the Character of God. No "LIE" is of the Truth. When you find a "lie" its not about God.

Allow me to show how your view is deistic. Your side believes that God inspired inerrent autographs. But you also believe that God did not fully keep His words, rather, you believe that naturalistic processes outworked, and that you supply equally naturalistic solutions to these problems, in order to as best as possible both recover the autographical text, and also to render it meaningfully (via certain translation methods) to a contemporary audience. (Further than this is also the false hermeneutic which views great gulfs of thought, culture, mindset, worldview between what the Bible says and how people think today, like as if God was not able to communicate properly to us by His words, but only to the first audience, and basically assuming that the Holy Ghost is not able to give proper comprehensibility today.)

Well. I'm going to have to do it. You're a liar. I never said these things, nor do I believe them. Why don't you get to know what I believe before you assume so much about me?

First, I believe God can and does anything He chooses to do. This doesn't mean that God "HAS" to do anything. Its not matter of "IF" God can do something. Its a matter of "DID" God do this or that. Get it???

I see no reason whatsoever for God to "shut up" the Scriptures in an archaic Early Modern English translation of the Scriptures. NONE. Please feel free to prove me wrong. Please do this in a seperate thread.

There is no arbitrary, random, mindless advocating that the KJB is perfect, but what is based on proper understanding of Scripture, what is in line with the Holy Ghost, what can be properly understood and reasoned based on external evidence (like Divine Providence) and what is witnessed to by Bible believers who are genuine and against modernistic infidelity.

So....regardless of common reason, and beyond anything that can be explained, you simply fall back to "Divine Providence" as the primary source of your belief in the perfect KJV?

Really?

You then appeal to "Bible believers" against "modernistic infidelity" as "proof"????

Do you mean people like "Avery and Kinney"?

Talk about imperfection being used to define perfection...... Geesh...

A rationalist-influenced person will scoff at the KJB's perfection by implying it is fantasy/superstition, such as the quip about the one to rule them all. True faith is always derided by anti-supernaturalists in such manners as can be read in the above.

Well. I try to be rational. I do. I haven't said anything about fantasy and superstition when it comes to the KJV. Why are you attributing such "evil works" to my account?

 

[Steven Avery]

. 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.

Thanks, this is a handy summary.

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.

Proverbs 1:23 
Turn you at my reproof:
behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you,
I will make known my words unto you.

Isaiah 30:1 
Woe to the rebellious children,
saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me;
and that cover with a covering,
but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

Isaiah 42:1 
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth;
I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 44:3 
For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty,
and floods upon the dry ground:
I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

Isaiah 59:21 
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed,
saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Ezekiel 36:27
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes,
and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Ezekiel 37:14 
And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land:
then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Ezekiel 39:29 
Neither will I hide my face any more from them:
for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

Joel 2:28 
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams,
your young men shall see visions:

Joel 2:29 
And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

Haggai 2:5
According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt,
so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.

Zechariah 4:6 
Then he answered and spake unto me, saying,
This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying,
Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

Zechariah 6:8 
Then cried he upon me, and spake unto me, saying,
Behold, these that go toward the north country have quieted my spirit in the north country.

Whenever God speaks of "my spirit" in the OT, past, present or future, spirit is lower case, it is a generalized application of the Lord speaking. 

Acts 2 is quite different, because "Spirit" represents the immediate and direct outpouring of the Holy Ghost which was being experienced:

Acts 2:4 
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:17-18
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

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. ... Yes in ASCII initially, HEX was not necessary, because the master was being done in Word with Word formatting (small caps, italics, etc).... All were text files in TXT, RTF or DOC (2003) format.... 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.

Thanks, good info!

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.

Keep in mind that the AV 1611 capitalized Water, Spirit and Blood. 
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1483

Thus, updating was necessary and proper, and the 1611 would not show the intent of the spirit distinction. 

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.... 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".

Some of this is excellent, some I question.  My biggest concern, in terms of the discussion, is getting into an idea of "restricted fulfilment" in terms of Joel 2:28 and Acts 2.  This is interpretative and I believe quite unnecessary for the capitalization question.

And I do agree heartily with your surprise that Christian Bible-believers are accused of being fideistic .

Steven Avery

 

[praise_yeshua]

Whenever God speaks of "my spirit" in the OT, past, present or future, spirit is lower case, it is a generalized application of the Lord speaking. 

Acts 2 is quite different, because "Spirit" represents the immediate and direct outpouring of the Holy Ghost which was being experienced:

Avery.... you're such a nut..... Why don't you explain Ezekiel 11:24

Eze 11:24  Afterwards the spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity. So the vision that I had seen went up from me.

 

[logos1560]

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.

Have you demonstrated that all your claims are historically correct? 

Those sources which may have first identified Thomas Paris as the editor of the 1762 Cambridge edition may be the same ones which were not aware of the fact that the Cambridge KJV text had actually been revised in 1743.  Have you demonstrated that the 1762 Cambridge edition text is actually clearly different from the 1743 Cambridge edition text edited by Francis Sawyer Parris and that the 1762 was actually edited by a different editor?  How can Thomas Paris be considered responsible for the typical 1762 Cambridge renderings that were already in print in 1743?

Concerning the 1762 Cambridge, William White wrote:  "In point of fact it has recently been established that the editor was Dr. F. S. Parris of Sidney Sussex College, who was responsible for most of the textual emendations in the 12 mo and 8 vo editions printed by Bentham in 1743, 1747, and 1760" (The Book Collector, Vol. 45, p. 25).