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.
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:
I think all this is getting to you.
Work on what you are saying before you say someone else can't talk right.
"across the world"?, "through 244 reprints"? compared to one, or two,
or three individual copies of the Geneva? and the Calvinists had some?
Just a comment by someone.
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?
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.
Fables or Fiction concerning editions of the KJV
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Nov 9, 2023.
Page 4 of 4
-
Alan Gross Well-Known Member
-
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). -
-
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. -
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.
Page 4 of 4