In another thread deacon jd made the following statement: This statement must logically lead to the conclusion that the KJV is corrupt. The KJV was a revision of the earlier Bishops' Bible. According to deacon jd's reasoning, since the Bishops' Bible was translated largely from the corrupt Latin Vulgate, and since the KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, therefore the KJV is corrupt. This is an amazing thing for someone to say when they so staunchly claim to support the KJVO belief. Deacon jd, either your quoted statement is false or else the KJV is corrupt. Which is it?