I infer from this that you mean this as a (veiled?) insult for the way I presented the passage regarding regret vs. repentance. You probably know that in the AV the translators were faithful to the reader in that they italicized the words that they added to the translation that were not in the Greek text. So that is what I do when presenting the KJV/AV here so that the same faithfulness to the translation is observed. If this little detail is not observed, and the verse no longer distinguishes these added words, the the verse can no longer be presented as nor clain to be as from the Crown-Authorized Bible.
Also, the translation may be read leaving those added words out, without violating the translation or the sense of the original text from which it was translated. Sometimes when I present the passage from the AV, I may, without removing the added words (honoring the translators) do strike them through, so as to encourage the reader to read the passage eliminating the added words, and thereby see that the meaning may be a bit limited by the added word(s). In doing so, I have not changed the original text at all, nor the English sense of it.
Since a translation is not inspired, and what I have done is not dishonoring, the innuendo I take from your comment that I have done something to mar or defile the passage is unacceptable. You did not mean it as a scholarly correction, did you?
I know all that and more. I find it odd when Sola Scriptura adherents admit they don't really have a true translation of the scriptures, so that they must change it on the fly, to try to prove reformation of Christianity doctrines; seems like a circular argument to me. I note how readily they shed what the traditional Protestant and Independent Fundamental Baptist relied upon, the Crown-Authorized Bible. What is usually conceded next is that there are no original manuscripts upon which to base their new translations, and they often include the oldest known rather than the Textus Receptus.