What is "proper copy editing?"

[logos1560]

Bibleprotector, when the renderings known to characterize the 1762 Cambridge edition were already introduced and found in the 1743 Cambridge edition edited by F. S. Parris, what is your sound evidence that Thomas Paris had any serious, significant editing to do in 1762 and actually was the one to do any editing in 1762?

Those OT renderings introduced and made by F. S. Parris in the 1743 Cambridge are the very ones that would be claimed to characterize the 1762 Cambridge:  "all lost things" (Deut. 22:3), "Asa's heart" (1 Kings 15:14), "all the business" (1 Chron. 26:30), "whom God alone" (1 Chron. 29:1), "rulers of" (1 Chron. 29:6), "Charchemish" (2 Chron. 35:20), "and the gold" (Ezra 7:18), "Mordecai's matters" (Esther 3:4), "and he seeth" (Job 8:17), "and he saveth" (Ps. 107:19), "merchant ships" (Prov. 30:31), "farther" (Eccl. 8:17), "gone to" (Isa. 15:2), "The word that" (Jer. 40:1), "and he kept" (Amos 1:11), "Hamath" (Amos 6:14),  "hidden things" (Obadiah 1:6), "fleeth away" (Nahum 3:16).

 

[bibleprotector]

Bibleprotector, when the renderings known to characterize the 1762 Cambridge edition were already introduced and found in the 1743 Cambridge edition edited by F. S. Parris, what is your sound evidence that Thomas Paris had any serious, significant editing to do in 1762 and actually was the one to do any editing in 1762?

I do not hold the 1762 to be relatively "significant". I refer merely to the information which identifies Thomas Paris as the editor of 1762 edition. I do not dispute the possibility that F. S. Parris worked editorially on the 1743.

 

[FSSL]

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.

... after he just said Paris made "corrections" and "worked editorially." The problem with KJVOism is that they have to redefine the English language to allow for their mystical, man made faith position.

Classic liberalism always redefines terminology.

 

[subllibrm]

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.

... after he just said Paris made "corrections" and "worked editorially." The problem with KJVOism is that they have to redefine the English language to allow for their mystical, man made faith position.

Classic liberalism always redefines terminology.

KJV - a perfect work in progress for 400 years.