Various KJV defenders and KJV-only authors have referred to the KJV as being a revision of Tyndale's and the other pre-1611 English Bibles. For example, Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 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). David Cloud referred to the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (ROME AND THE BIBLE, p. 106). Cloud wrote: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O TIMOTHY, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). According to a consistent application of this reasoning that maintains that the KJV is a revision of Tyndale's and the other pre-1611 English Bibles, it can be accurately stated that in the same sense the NKJV is a revision of the KJV. Just like the KJV is both a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles and a translation of the original language texts, the NKJV is also both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same original language texts. There may be greater textual differences between Tyndale's and the KJV than any that can be claimed between the KJV and the NKJV. I can provide valid evidence to support these observations. Can any valid evidence be offered by those who imply that all modern versions including the NKJV are not based on the same original language texts as the KJV?