Talk:Revised Version

message: Where can I buy one of these today?
--Cambridge University Press still publishes the KJV-RV Interlinear Bible.  In the 19th century OUP and CUP published AV-RV Parallel text Bibles and NTs, which are available secondhand.86.180.11.34 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

message: I am placing these unsourced statements here. I am not sure what the King-James-Only or Revised Standard Version version material contributes to this article. Christians denounced? "Who?" Would be a question I would ask.
"Apart from criticisms of the RV's excessive literalism, many Christians denounced the RV as being based on faulty manuscripts, the early murmurings of what would come to be known as the King-James-Only Movement which would gain more momentum after the publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1952."
"Because of the RV's perceived loss of linguistic beauty, the King James Version remains the standard translation of English-speaking Christians."
AbubakarB (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements 

message: The article should discuss some of the main criticisms of the RV — such as that it only clarified obscure 17th-century language in the KJV to a limited degree, that it adopted a rigid Classical Attic based approach to translating Greek verb tenses which was later revealed to be completely wrong by the discovery of vernacular Koine manuscripts in Egypt, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: MizArazi The edits from Revision as of 20:29, 11 December 2014 introduced some non-standard editing in uppercase.  Examples: "Which used the ALEXANDRIAN Greek," "This statement is another NON factual opinion as the greek that they argue is oldest is actually from EGYPT and is only compiled of 40 manuscripts. OF those 40, only 2% back each other up in truth."  It also contains questionable, unclear grammar, such as: 
Their stated aim was "to adapt King James' version to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom and vocabulary," and "to adapt it to the present standard of Biblical scholarship." This is a major fact disputed statement as it takes out full chapters of the King James Bible and thousands of verses completely. 
Without a playbook, it is hard to know WHAT is the "disputed statement."  Did you intend to call question to the previous statement in the text?
Perhaps the intention was to introduce commentary in the text for discussion and further comment.  If so, please revert your edits and add your comments to this talk page, with a link to the original editor to draw him/her into the discussion.--Sfarney (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-standard editing

message: The statement that the Apocrypha came out in 1895 conflicts with that
lower down:"The New Testament was published in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1894.[1]" 
The first edition of the RV being thus a matching set I think of volumes, not available as a full set until 1894. Which has lead to the common error that the RV rejected/ did not contain these 14 books of the KJV. 122.61.103.6 (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1894 or 1895? 

message: Is the Revised Version subject to perpetual Crown Copyright in the UK in the same way that the Authorized Version is, or not? 20:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer my own question (to some extent), the Revisers say in their preface that they have entered into an agreement with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to transfer to them their copyright in the work.  This is interesting but still raises a few questions. 21:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright