I read parts of the report myself, and have concluded that the ABS revision of 1851 is bad.

Quote:
What if your information about it is incomplete or faulty?


I have quoted Scrivener and Norton in relation to this matter. These authors are unlikely to be wrong in their reporting of bare facts about ABS KJBs.

Just because I have not seen an ABS KJB does not mean that my overall conclusions are suspect.

By the way, I do not claim to know everything, and I am willing to take into consideration facts (that are actually facts) as they are presented. I am certain that the facts show that the ABS Bibles not contributing to the purity of the KJB as much as Scrivener's edition did not contribute to the purification of the KJB. This is despite the fact various pure renderings appeared in Scrivener, or may appear in any of the several different ABS edition types.