Did textual critics stir things up in 1611?

You have not demonstrated that your assertion is factually true.

Some actual facts from the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV would conflict with your statement. There were a number of actual textual differences (some even involving whole verses) between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV. At least two pre-1611 English Bibles had three whole verses that are not found in the 1611 KJV, and some of the pre-1611 English Bibles did not have three whole verses that are found in the 1611 KJV.

When the textual critics who made the KJV added some whole verses plus some clauses, some phrases, and some words not found in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles, and omitted some whole verses plus some clauses, some phrases, and some words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles, does a consistent just application of your assertion mean that they stirred things up?

There were over 140 words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV that were added in some later KJV editions.

 

The KJV translators did make some decisions that involves a form of textual criticism. I have found as many as over 100 possible textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible's NT and the 1611 KJV's NT. Several of them were pointed out in the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

 

You seem to be avoiding or side-stepping actual facts that would prove your claim cited in the opening post of this thread is not true. It seems that you stop responding whenever some of your unproven claims are soundly answered or refuted.

The makers of the KJV left out over 400 words found in the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. They left out over 150 words in the book of Psalms (including three whole verses), over 100 words in the book of Acts, and at least around 150 words in the rest of the books.