TeeHee -- blaming the MVs on the variants in the KJV?
Well, I blame my bad genes on Bibleprotector who is my 237th cousin 18 generations removed.

__________________

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale true standard Oxford Edition of the KJV ... true Oxford edition

What is your basis for the presumption that there is such a thing as the "true Oxford edition" ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

If KJV-only advocates can make the presumption that there is such a thing as the "true Cambridge edition," why would not the same reasoning apply to the Oxford edition?

Bibleprotector posted: "We cannot deny that the revision of that year is paternal to all proper editions today, and influential on many editions since."

Bibleprotector in effect suggested that the standard 1769 Oxford edition is "paternal" to the so-called PCE edition.

It is an arbitary list. I have compiled an extensive list here: http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm

The scholarly approach is to set up a standard. In this case, a critical formation of the Oxford Edition (based on normal edition representatives from the twentieth century).

By this, Oxford variations may be measured.

1. examples where pre-1800 editions disagree

e.g. the "Beer-sheba, Sheba" variation at Joshua 19:2

2. examples where pre-1900 editions disagree

e.g. "sope" at Jeremiah 2:22

3. examples where the Scofield differs

e.g. "burnt-offerings" at Genesis 8:20
e.g. "vapours" at Psalm 148:8

4. examples of where the Classic Edition differs

e.g. "yours" at Genesis 45:20

This list of five would go some way to show variations within Oxford Editions.

P.S. Also check what punctuation is at the end of Jeremiah 32:5.

__________________
__________________________
http://www.bibleprotector.com

That reasoning does not work, because the PCE and the discovery of it was not pluckt out of the air.

When Burgon compared renderings to some standard, he used Lloyd's Textus Receptus. Burgon (according to his editor) did not uphold the Textus Receptus as perfect, but used it as a scholarly standard. Thus, upholding a critical Oxford Edition to test from is entirely different to upholding some Oxford as having completely pure presentation. There is no POE (it would fall like the house of Usher).

All proper normal editions of the twentieth century come from the 1769 Edition. Of course, all have altered slightly. The PCE is a revision in its own right.

__________________
__________________________
http://www.bibleprotector.com

That rendering did not originate with the Scofield. I checked and found in Cambridge editions printed in 1769, 1817, and 1824.

That point is not relevant, because Scofield had this variation in the twentieth century when other Oxford editions, especially the Oxford Critical Standard, did not.

As has been discussed before, various renderings in various Oxford editions etc. might be found in certain Cambridge editions, or even originate from them.

That would lead you further away from attempting to set up a so-called perfect Oxford presentation.

__________________
__________________________
http://www.bibleprotector.com

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale KJV-only advocates can make the presumption ... "true Cambridge edition," why would not the same reasoning apply to the Oxford edition?

"True Cambridge edition" is your wording ... "Pure Cambridge edition" is the wording used with the PCE. The purity refers to the purity of the text, and a placed as the historic received text .. not a status as the Cambridge edition they print today.

Oxford editions could differ as to how excellent they are, there is no need for one to be the "true" edition, nor would one be the POE.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Because some KJV-only advocates give a certain edition this name is not evidence that it deserves that name or that the name is accurate. Is the English used in the so-called PCE pure standard English of today in all its spellings and grammar?

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale some KJV-only advocates give a certain edition this name is not evidence that it deserves that name

What would you consider evidence ?

Since you consider no King James Bible as pure, and never call even one verse the perfect word of God, why would you be the one to ask for "evidence" ?

Could a skeptic and atheist properly evaluate evidence that the preserved scripture that you affirm is the pure and perfect word of God ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery