Fables or Fiction concerning editions of the KJV

[Alan Gross]

God's standard for a "revision", "edition", "correction", "version",
"change", etc , is that which falls outside of the boundaries
and parameters of The Old Testament quotations
recorded in The New Testament.

Old Testament quotations in the New Testament :
Archer, Gleason L., Jr., 1916-2004

There is your criteria for evaluating
whether a substantial difference in meaning has occured.

"The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms..."

"What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present- day spelling?
See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran,
evil, and stars.

"These typographical and spelling changes
account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes
in the King James Bible.

"None of them alter the text in any way.

"Therefore they cannot be honestly compared
with thousands of true textual changes
which are blatantly made in the modern versions."

"Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors.

"That this is a fact may be seen in three things:

"(1) the character of the changes,
"(2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible,
"and (3) the time the changes were made.

"Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions
made to the 1611 as if they were on par with the recent bible versions.

"They are not.

This author claims that the changes in many varying KJV editions are not the changes of a revision when he merely proves that they are.
The corrections of errors would make a later edition a revision.

You must have missed what he qualified his words to mean:

"All of these changes resulted in different editions, but no revisions.

"This is not engaging in semantics.

"A given work is revised if the author
(or translator) didn't like everything in the original
and wants to make substantive changes.

"However, to follow this example, if the publisher
did not accurately transcribe the author's manuscript in the original edition,
then the corrections would be incorporated into a second edition,
not a revision.

"This second edition would simply be what the author
originally wished to say (assuming that all of the printing errors
were purged). And this is the case with the KJV.

Your final answer is wrong.
There have been revisions of the 1611 edition of the KJV
regardless of your vain efforts to deny the truth.

The over 2,000 changes including a good number of corrections
to the 1611 edition of the KJV are enough to warrant the use
of the accurate term revision for the different revised editions.

Since, you don't know what you're talking about, give it up.

An "edition" is what you tell me a "revision" is

AND AS FAR AS THE KJV GOES, YOU SHOULD JUST SEE:

the thousands of significant, major revisions

I think all this is getting to you.

Work on what you are saying before you say someone else can't talk right.

"This group argues that the King James Bible’s Hebrew
and Greek translations are the most accurate.

The argument is that the King James Bible is based on better manuscripts...

"The King James Bible is believed to be an exemplary translation,
but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts
have the potential to be equally good."

"May Christians reject the modern Greek texts and the versions
which follow them and use the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament
and the Authorised Version, which God has blessed for many centuries!"

"In the first half of the 17th Century the Authorized Version
was commonly referred to as “The Bible without notes”,
thereby distinguishing it from the Geneva “Bible with notes”.

"The Authorized Version became the only Bible
circulating among English speaking people across the world.

"Although originally intended for Anglicans,
the new translation soon spread its influence across the spectrum
of emerging denominations and sects, as it gave voice
to Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Quakers and Baptists.

"In the wake of its first printing in 1611 the King James Version
went through 244 reprints in the following two hundred years.

During what years do you claim that the KJV
was the only Bible circulating among English-speaking people?

"across the world"?, "through 244 reprints"? compared to one, or two,
or three individual copies of the Geneva? and the Calvinists had some?

"The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the people, the Bible of the persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith, the Bible of choice among English-speaking people for over one hundred years, from its initial printing in 1560,
fifty years before the King James Bible, until the 1660‘s"

Just a comment by someone.

the Geneva Bible “continued to be the Bible of Calvinists

L. C. Vass noted that “like a Scotchman, he [George Durant]
brought his Geneva Bible with him”

[editions of the Geneva Bible] were still “in many men’s hands”

Geneva Bibles with eighteenth-century inscriptions
are quite common

He gave the example of one Geneva Bible

Alec Gilmore observed that there is some evidence
that a 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible

John Brown noted that “as late as the close of the 18th century
a Genevan Bible

Isn't all that just the most specific information you ever heard?

Compared to the KJV generally being said to have gone
"through 244 reprints"? and was distributed "across the world"?,
because of it being so highly sought after?

Just as the KJV can accurately be referred
to as a revision of Tyndale's, or of the Geneva Bible,
or of the Bishops' Bible,
the NKJV can likewise be accurately referred to
as a revision of the KJV.

You know what you need?

A "measures and standards that apply to
Only the Bridge Version NKJV and all the other modern versions"
that it is intended to be and is acting as a bridge to, away from The KJV.

That's what you need, to see what "revisions" is really all about.

 

[Logos1560]

That's what you need, to see what "revisions" is really all about.

I see what the revisions in the NKJV are really all about. My eyes are open to the truth. Your eyes seem to be closed since you have failed to correct your incorrect accusations against the NKJV after they were exposed as being not true.

The revisions include updating archaic language in the KJV, restoring some clearer or better renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles, refining unclear or less accurate renderings in the KJV, correcting misleading or incorrect renderings in the KJV, revising some textual emendations followed in the KJV, etc.

KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240). David Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). Laurence Vance acknowledged that the NKJV’s “New Testament was based on the Received Text” (Brief History, p. 92).

KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104).
Wilbur Pickering maintained that “the King James Version (AV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) reflect a form of the text based upon the many later MSS” (Identity of the NT Text II, p. 1; Identity of the NT Text IV, p. 2).
KJV-only author Jack McElroy admitted that the “NKJV is translated from the same Greek New Testament and virtually the same Hebrew Old Testament as the 1611 King James Bible” (Which Bible Would Jesus Use, p. 135).

Charles Surrett, who is biased toward the KJV, indicated that at least “72 times” the KJV’s underlying Greek New Testament text supported the NKJV’s renderings in the book of Romans over the KJV’s renderings (Certainty of the Words, p. 123).

 

[Conan]

 

[Logos1560]

Since, you don't know what you're talking about, give it up.

An "edition" is what you tell me a "revision" is

I know what I am talking about. Perhaps you fail to understand what I clearly state or else you try to distort and misrepresent what I stated.

I did not claim that the word "edition" always means the same thing as "revision." The two terms edition and revision are sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes not.

The same exact edition can be reprinted in a different year. When a different edition is made, it often involves revising which would make it a revision. If someone edits an old edition, they are typically revising it, making a new different edition.

 

[37818]

Family 35 has within it sets of manuscripts by book by book that are letter by letter the same.

For reference, two readings I favor.
Matthew 3:11, και πυρι {f35 omits}
1 Peter 2:2, εις σωτηριαν {f35 keeps}

And otherwise favor the f35 readings.
I do see it as a case by case issue.