a KJV translated from the Peshitta?

Peter Ruckman contended that the Peshitta "contained the O. T. as it stands in the A.V. 1611, and the New Testament as it stands in the A. V. 1611" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 79). KJV-only author William [or Bill] Bradley also claimed: "If you translate from the Peshitta into English, what you'll have in your hands is a King James Bible" (To All Generations, p. 52). Bradley also contended that the existing Peshitta manuscripts give “us a direct link from the King James Bible to the very handwritten documents of Paul, Peter, James, John and the rest” (p. 6). Donald Clarke contended that the Peshitta was "virtually the same Bible" as our English KJV (Bible Version Manual, pp. 19-20). KJV-only author Mickey Winter claimed that the KJV is "in harmony" with the Peshitta (KJV on Trial, p. 16). The Peshitta is placed on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles or stream of the preserved text.


Would an English translation of the Peshitta be the same as the KJV? Would KJV-only advocates accept an English translation of the Peshitta as being the word of God?

 

At least a couple English translations have already been made from the Syriac Peshitta Bible.

Thus, William Bradley's claim that if the Peshitta was translated into English it would be a King James Bible can be tested to see whether or not it is accurate.

 

KJV-only author Bill Bradley wrote that at a pastor's house he "pulled from the shelf a copy of Murdock's translation of the Peshitta into English" (Purified Seven Times, p. 57). After looking at Murdock's English translation, Bradley still maintained that his statements were correct. He ignored or skipped over the fact of the many differences between an English translation of the Peshitta and the KJV.

He also seems to be unaware of the fact that some verses missing in all the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta were added by editors from the Greek to some later printed editions of the Peshitta text.

 

Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Hall pointed out that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). F. H. A. Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)“ (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.

 

Does "withcraft" involve the craft of the use of false claims and accusations with an attempt to defend a man-made KJV-only theory?