Marginal notes in text of KJV?

Are there any places where marginal notes in a printed edition of an original language text or in a translation become the text in the KJV? If so, would that be wrong according to a consistent application of typical KJV-only reasoning? Will the exact same measures be used to evaluate the KJV as are used to evaluate other translations?

Did the KJV translators have a very different view or regard for textual marginal notes than KJV-only advocates claim to have?

In their preface, the KJV translators wrote: "For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt those things that are evident, so to determine such things as the Spirit of God hath left questionable (even in the judgment of the judicious), can be no less than presumption."

In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators asserted: "They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be capivated to one, when it may be the other."

It has been accurately pointed out that the KJV translators sometimes followed readings found in the marginal notes of the Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the actual reading in the text.

Christian D. Ginsburg presented or listed examples where the KJV adopted in its text the Keri reading of the margin of the Masoretic text instead of the text reading. For example, Ginsburg maintained that the KJV “adopts the Keri” at Judges 20:13 where “the Massorah tells us the [Hebrew] word sons of, has dropped out and directs us to supply it in reading” (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, p. 313). Ginsburg claimed that at 2 Kings 19:31 “the direction in the Keri [is] that [the Hebrew word] of hosts, should be supplied here in reading,” and he noted that the KJV “adopts the Keri” (p. 314). Ginsburg asserted that “many MSS., early editions, and the Versions have the Keri in the text” at this verse (p. 314).

F. H. A. Scrivener gave some examples where he maintained that the KJV adopted in its text the Keri reading from the marginal notes [1 Sam. 27:8, 2 Sam. 13:37, 1 Kings 22:48, 2 Kings 20:4, 2 Kings 23:33, Ezra 2:33, 46, Job 6:21, Job 33:28, Ps. 9:12, Ps. 10:12, Prov. 17:27, Isa. 65:4, Jer. 2:20, Ezek. 25:7, Dan. 9:24, Zech. 11:2] (Authorized Edition of the English Bible, pp. 41-42).

The KJV translators may have sometimes followed the reading in the marginal note in a translation.

It can be established as a fact that the reading in the marginal note of a pre-1611 English translation is now in the text of the KJV.

John Eadie maintained that sometimes “the margin of the Bishops’ [Bible] [becomes] the text of the Authorized, as in Galatians 6:12, 2 Peter 1:20” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 221). The marginal note in a 1595 edition of the Bishops’ at Galatians 6:12 for “carnally” in its text is “Or, in the flesh.” This same Bishops’ edition’s marginal note for “motion” in its text at 2 Peter 1:20 is “or, interpretation.” The 1560 Geneva Bible did have “in the flesh” in its text at Galatians 6:12 so that the 1611 KJV could have been following it. Ward Allen also referred to “words from the margin of the Bishops’ Bible which have influenced the king’s translators,” and he gave three examples (Coming, pp. 45-46). In one of those examples (Luke 5:21), for “think” in its text the Bishops’ Bible has a marginal note “reason,” which is in the text in the KJV.

H. Wheeler Robinson contended that sometimes the margin of the Geneva Bible became the text in the KJV (Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, p. 206).

The marginal note of the 1560 Geneva Bible at Deuteronomy 3:17 [“Or Ashdoth-Pisgah”] seems to have become the text of the 1611 KJV while the marginal note of the 1611 [“Or under the springs of Pisgah, or the hill”] seems to have come from the text of both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible.

The marginal note “Or scorpions” at 1 Kings 12:11 in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1595 edition of the Bishops’ Bible was used in the text of the KJV. The 1535 Coverdale’s, 1537 Matthew’s, and 1540 edition of the Great Bible did have “scorpions” in their text at 1 Kings 12:11 where the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1568 Bishops’ Bible have “scourges.”

At one verse John 18:13, the text of one pre-1611 English Bible [the Bishops' Bible--the second authoritized version] became a marginal note in the KJV. The Bishops' Bible had in its text at John 18:13 the following: "And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest," which is removed from the text and put in a marginal note in the 1611 KJV.

At Job 30:29, the reading "ostriches" in the text of the 1560 Geneva Bible becomes a marginal note in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

Are KJV-only advocates in effect guilty of the use of unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures if they attack or criticize other translations for the same-type things evident in the making of the KJV?

 

Are holders of a KJV-only view unable to deal with accurate, factual information that may indicate use of inconsistent, divers measures in typical KJV-only accusations against other English Bibles?

 

Instead of discussing the topic of the thread, it would seem that some want to try to attack and smear personally anyone that disagrees with the subjective opinions of men [KJV-only advocates].

Should a stand for the consistent truth of what the Scriptures actually state and teach about themselves be considered an "obsession"?