In the article that serves as the basis of another thread, James W. Knox wrote: "My purpose today is to appeal to those who are convinced our English Bible stands without error and bears no need of revision." How could anyone who knows about the history of our English Bible make such a faulty claim as suggesting that the English Bible bears no need of revision? The KJV is not exclusively our English Bible as Knox seems to assume. An English Bible [actually several different English Bibles] existed before 1611. The entire history of our English Bible is a history of revision. The 1560 Geneva Bible was our English Bible before the KJV ever existed. Later editions of the Geneva Bible introduced revisions to the 1560 Geneva Bible. Later English Bibles such as the KJV also made revisions to our English Bible. It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles. It is also a fact that later editions of the KJV made revisions to the 1611 edition. It is also a fact that later editions of the KJV have made revision to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Revisions to the KJV have been made up to the 1900's, and editions making revisions were printed after that. For one example, there is a 2011 Cambridge edition of the KJV edited by David Norton that has revisions. Some if not all the present twenty to thirty or more varying editions of the KJV definitely still need revision to make them in agreement with the one of those varying editions that has the more correct rendering in the many places where they differ. Where is the sound evidence for claiming that the varying present editions of the KJV need no revision?