Another question I'm looking to answer is exactly what they thought needed revising in the AV. I know that question is anathema for many here, or at least the idea itself that it needed revising is, but it seems important to know what they thought they wanted changed when they convened the revising body for that purpose.

Mauro concedes that the AV needed revising, so does Burgon I think though just for the purposes of private study or something like that? Exactly what did they think needed changing? Again, I may find the answer as I continue to read but if anyone simply knows it and would post it I'd appreciate it.

I've been praying by the way that the Lord would show me if it really is an affront to His word to think any revision at all is necessary, as so many here maintain. So far I continue to think that a revision done right would simply be a new container for the same word, to use Will Kinney's wonderful metaphor (although I'm not expecting or even wanting such a revision to happen any more).