Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Dec 15, 2011.
At least per those holding to KJVO?
Not to be rude, but-
You already know the answer- why ask the question?
I think you already know the answer to that! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Since all of them claim to NOT be new revisons, just updating to modern use of English, same TR, same KJV right?
KJV-only advocates will not accept the 1994 KJ21, the Modern KJV, or KJV3 as being editions of the KJV, but that does not mean that they are consistent in that.
KJV-only advocates will refer to the KJV as being an edition or revision of Tyndale's Bible. They use the terms "edition" and "revision" as interchangeable in some of their claims.
The fact is that the KJV differs much more from Tyndale's than the 1994 KJ21 differs from the KJV. According to a consistent application of KJV-only claims concerning the relationship of the KJV to the pre-1611 English Bibles, the KJ21 could be considered an edition or revision of the KJV.
KJV-only author David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). KJV-only author Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198). Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215).