Featured Makers of KJV as Bible revisers

Are you actually suggesting that KJV-only advocates are entitled and right to make judgments concerning Bible translations based on divers measures and weights?

When KJV-only advocates state their judgments concerning Bible translations including the KJV, are they righteous judgments based on consistent, just, true weights and measures or are they unrighteous judgments based on divers weights or measures?

Since "a just weight and balance are the LORD's," He would not approve of the use of unjust weights, measures, or balances in the weighing, measuring, or evaluating of translations of His Word.

The use of any unrighteous divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating or trying copies or translations would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5).

 

Were you describing the view of the KJV translators?

 

Again it is clearly evident that faulty KJV-only reasoning cannot be applied consistently using just measures or weights.

 

The KJV was the attempt of a group of men to produce a "better" and up-to-date version of the earlier English Bibles.

The KJV translators clearly stated that their endeavor, mark, or goal was to make a good English Bible "better". Why would you seem to condemn others for having the same goal as the KJV translators had?

The KJV translators updated the archaic-type language in the Bishops' Bible in many places with the more up-to-date renderings of the Geneva Bible or of Tyndale's, but they inconsistently kept some of that archaic-type language from the Bishops' Bible in other places where the Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible already had more up-to-date, clearer, or more understandable language.

Present KJV editions are attempts of men or editors to produce a better and more up-to-date version of the 1611 edition of the KJV. Cambridge had attempted to produce a better edition of the KJV in 1629, again in 1638, again in 1743, again in 1762, again in 1817, again later in the 1800's, again in 1873, again in 2005, again in 2011.

 

In the thread entitled "Does KJVO equal Fundamental?" at the Fundamental Baptist Forum

Even Peter Ruckman was not as extreme before 1970 as he would later be. Peter Ruckman at one time did not claim that Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 included translations as he would later try to imply.

In a letter written to Robert Sumner in 1971, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Tim 3:16 and deals with the original autographs, as we all know” (letter, p. 2).

 

As Bible revisers, the KJV translators should have revised Tyndale's or the Geneva less in a number of places, but they should have revised the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible more by following more up-to-date, clearer, and better renderings in one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles.