I am afraid your equations are other way around.
Ecell = Eoxidation - Ereduction
This is not the accepted convention among electrochemists. Either the reference is outdated or there is a typo. All electrochemists in the world now follow the convention of writing
Ecell= Ereduction-Eoxidation or Ecell = Ecathode-Eanode ---Eq(1)
The reason is historical and I have written details elsewhere, but briefly the main reason is that Americans used one sign convention and the Europeans used another. It took more than 50 years to come to a consistent sign convention, which was originally used by a German chemist, Ostwald, 100 years ago. Given that all electrode potentials are now written as reduction potentials the above Eq. (1) is valid. If you look up the tables, the signs of the electrode potentials correspond to the actual electrostatic sign (+) or (-) of the electrode.
Now this simplistic equation (1) ignores any "connections" among the half cells. In reality we always need an electrically conducting connection to the half cells to keep them separated yet electrically connected. This "connection" could be a salt bridge, or a porous ceramic frit (used in pH probes and so on).
There is a general interesting electrochemical fact whenever there is an interface (the location where two surfaces meet) one can build up difference of electrical potential. This is a fundamental material property. Recall the simple voltaic cell, which has copper and zinc pieces separated by a piece of wet paper containing some common salt.
Liquid junction potential (Ej) is another type of potential which originates at the interface of two electrolytes with different concentration of ions (=charges). In that case we add the liquid junction potential to this Ecell as follows
Ecell= Ecathode-Eanode+ Ej
I have not seen your other equation. Ecell = Eoxidation + Ejunction - Ereduction - Eelectrode. Which book is using this expression and what is its year of publication?