Differences in Acts

Would any of these be possible textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV in the book of Acts?


Acts 1:26

and he was by a common consent counted [1560 Geneva Bible]

and he was numbered [1611 KJV]


Acts 3:3

desired to receive an alms [1560 Geneva Bible]

asked an alms [1611 KJV]


Acts 7:16

Emor, son of Sychem [1560 Geneva Bible]

Emmor the father of Sychem [1611 KJV]


Acts 8:10

To whom they gave heed [1560 Geneva Bible]

To whom they all gave heed [1611 KJV]


Acts 8:13

the signs and great miracles [1560 Geneva Bible]

the miracles and signs [1611 KJV]


Acts 8:37

And Philip said unto him [1560 Geneva Bible]

And Philip said [1611 KJV]


Acts 14:23

And when they had ordained them elders by election [1560 Geneva Bible] [TR with possible influence from Latin NT of Erasmus or Latin NT of Beza or both]

And when they had ordained them elders [1611 KJV] [TR with possible textual influence from Latin Vulgate perhaps by means of 1582 Rheims]


Acts 21:1

And as we launched forth, and were departed from them [1560 Geneva Bible]

And it came to pass, that after we were gotten from them, and had launched [1611 KJV]

Acts 25:6
no more than ten days [1560 Geneva Bible]

more than ten days [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]


Acts 27:29

lest they should have fallen [1560 Geneva Bible]

lest we should have fallen [1611 KJV]

 

Because of possible additions from the Latin Vulgate, a 1540 edition of the Great Bible has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17).

 

Erasmus may have made some textual changes to his Byzantine Greek manuscripts in the book of Acts.

Jan Krans noted that “in John he [Erasmus] used min. 2 and in Acts min. 2815, which were corrected and marked-up as printer’s copy. Both manuscripts contain many errors, which affect not only spelling (itacisms etc.) but also missing words and phrases through homoeoteleuton etc.“ (Beyond What is Written, p. 62). Jan Krans asserted: “In the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7)” (p. 61, footnote 36).

After including Acts 8:37 in his list of Latin Vulgate readings followed by Erasmus, Edward F. Hills maintained that “in his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading [Acts 8:37] from the margin of [manuscript] 4ap” (KJV Defended, pp. 200-201).

 

This makes it very hard to see why the TR would be the perfect Greek text, as per the KJVO!