Talk:Revised Version

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)

Unsourced statements

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)

I have an original 1882 (antique) printing of the RV-KJV parallel Bible (New Testament). I highly recommend it. When the RV is read beside the KJV, there is not a lot of difference as far as accuracy of doctrine is concerned, even if the RV may be judged as being "less poetic." I believe God's word is poetic in itself, regardless of how a translation of it into another language from the originals, and the RV is still poetic. I believe the KJV-O crowd should not be allowed to add too much to this article due to their having a distorted bias, as most of their beliefs come from the books of Peter Ruckman and Gail A. Riplinger, which contain mostly conjecture, mockeries of other translations and those who read them, and baseless claims. Anything they add should not be of an ad hominem nature and should be checked for accuracy. A lot of KJV-O material comes straight from the lengthy misinformation in Riplinger's books, in which she grossly misquotes most of her sources to fit her claim. DollyArtist2013 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms

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)

Non-standard editing

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)sfarney

1894 or 1895?

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)

Could this have something to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury having made the decision that the Apocryphal books were no longer required to be placed in every Bible revision? I wonder. I wonder if it was the waiting on the translation of the Apocrypha that held up the publication of a complete volume of the RV. Since the OT and NT were complete by 1885, seems there should have been a complete volume published then without waiting for the translation of the KJV Apocrypha to be complete, if the Archbishop had declared the Apocrypha no longer a requirement. DollyArtist2013 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.34 (talk)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.34 (talk)