have the KJVO here seen this Article on dean Burgon and Kjv?

Dean Burgon spent his every spare moment striving to find God's words as close to the Autographa as possible. I believe he viewed the KJV as the best English translation of his time. His "thingie" was finding the most-accurate Greek and Hebrew renderings of Scripture possible, and he did remarkably well, considering that most of the ancient mss. now known were NOT known to him.

But, had he lived a hundred years later, I believe he woulda rejected the KJVO myth in a heartbeat.

 

John William Burgon asked: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ (Revision Revised, p. 388).

John William Burgon and Edward Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5).

Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller suggested that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96).

 

A member here, Dr. Thomas Cassidy (DocCas) was once a member of the Dean Burgon Society, but left it some years back. He can most likely tell you more about that org and its beliefs better than anyone else here, and also about the life, times, and works of Burgon himself.