In another thread, stilllearning posted: "But in the same breath, I said that there were many other great Bibles of that time: (William Tyndale's Bible), (Miles Coverdale's Bible), (John Wycliffe’s Bible), (The Bishop's Bible), (The Geneva Bible) etc. So in the strictest since [sense], I am not really KJVO." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is interesting that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision can be referred to as "great Bibles" when some of them differ more from the KJV at a number of places than some present English Bibles such as the NKJV, Modern KJV, KJ21, or KJ2000. The 1611 KJV was officially a revision of the 1602 edition of the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Nevertheless, there seem to be greater [and perhaps more] differences between the Bishops' Bible and the 1611 KJV than there are between the KJV and the NKJV. Changes in the English language in the 40-50 years between the 1568 Bishops' Bible and the 1611 KJV do not explain all the many differences between them. On the other hand, the over 350 years between the 1611 KJV and the 1982 NKJV with the many changes in the meanings of words in the English language do explain a good number of the updatings and changes that the NKJV made in the KJV. Since the NKJV is more in agreement with the KJV at many places than the KJV is in agreement with the Bishops' Bible and since many of the differences between the KJV and NKJV are updatings and revisions of archaic language, should the NKJV be considered a "great Bible" if the Bishops' Bible can be considered a "great Bible?" If you are not "really KJVO," it seems that you should be willing to consider the NKJV a "great Bible" in the same line of Bibles with the KJV, Geneva, Bishops', etc.