Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - logos1560

Pages: [1] 2
Bibliophiles / Hyles' book The Need for an Every-word Bible
« on: April 14, 2019, 08:45:12 PM »

Hyles, Jack. The Need for An Every-Word Bible. A Layman's Guide to Understanding the King
 James Bible Issue
.    Hammond, IN:  Hyles Publications, 2003. 168 pages

 Second printing, August, 2015.      Price $15.00

 This book is said to be transcribed from Hyles's Wednesday night series on "the King James Bible."   It was printed after Hyles' death.  The editors of this book do not identify themselves except to indicate that they are some of his former members.

 In this book based on his preaching, Jack Hyles showed that he had adopted erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching in contradiction to what he himself taught in some of his own earlier books such as his book on the book of Revelation.

 This book would not actually help laymen understand the King James Bible issue since it would misinform and mislead them. Several times there is use of fallacies evident in its claims and statements. The either/or fallacy or fallacy of false dilemma can be seen in several claims.

 Jack Hyles asserted: "Either somewhere in this world there is a book that contains the words of God that God has preserved word for word, or Christians have to believe in thought inspiration" (p. 15).

 Hyles claimed: "I have only two choices: the Catholic Bible kept in the Catholic church or the King James Bible" (p. 25).

 Hyles said: "Remember, if one Bible is true, the other Bible must be false. If one is genuine, the other is counterfeit" (p. 30).

 According to a consistent, just application of Hyles' own claims and reasoning in his book, would he suggest that the KJV is a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles which were false or counterfeit?  Hyles does not even mention the fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles perhaps because they would be a serious problem for some of his claims.   He skips over and ignores the fact of a pre-1611 English Bible.

Jack Hyles said: "You say, 'Brother Hyles, do you mean if there is one word wrong in the Bible, you have to throw everything else away?' That's exactly what I mean!" (p. 39).

 Hyles said: "If God has preserved His words, then only one set of words can be the preserved ones" (p. 14).

 According to a consistent, just application of Hyles' own statements and arguments, you would have to throw away the varying Textus Receptus editions, the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, and the 1611 edition of the KJV along with other KJV editions when they have one word wrong and since the KJV translators did not follow any one set of words for its OT text or for its NT text.   The KJV is not based on only one set of words since it was based on multiple textually-varying sources.   Present KJV editions are not every word the same as the 1611 edition or even as the 1769 Oxford edition.   There were words actually wrong in the 1611 edition of the KJV and in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition.  Some words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in most present KJV editions, and over 140 words not found in the 1611 editions are added in them.

 A just application of Hyles' own reasoning and claims in this book would prove that the KJV could not actually be an every-word Bible.

Bibliophiles / Reprint of 1769 Oxford KJV Edition
« on: March 14, 2019, 10:59:14 PM »

The Bible: 1769 Revised Standard Oxford Edition, 1st Edition, 1st Printing.
 Copyright 2017 The Bible Museum.

 There is a reprint of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition available. It is a large size--15 inches in length, 10 inches in width, and 3 inches in thickness. It includes the 1611 preface The Translators to the Reader and the Generalogies of Holy Scripture. It includes the Apocrypha as the 1769 edition did.

 It was available on Ebay and at the Bible Museum's web site.

 It was reprinted in honor of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation --1517-2017.

Bible Versions / Is the name the Holy Bible only for the KJV?
« on: February 02, 2019, 07:46:25 PM »
Does the name "the Holy Bible" always refer to only or solely the KJV?
 Does the KJV have sole and exclusive rights to this general name "the Holy Bible"?
 Was the name "the Holy Bible" used for any other English translation before 1611?

 The 1611 KJV was both a revision of earlier English translations (Tyndale's to Bishops') and a translation of the printed original-language text editions of Scripture.

 While now know as or called the 1560 Geneva Bible, it had the following title on its title page in 1560:

 The Bible and Holy Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testament, translated according to the Hebrew and Greek.

 While accurately identified as the 1568 Bishops' Bible, it had the following on its title page:

 The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New
 Authorised and appointed to be read in churches.

 The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, which is the edition prepared by the printers of the 1611 KJV and given to the KJV translators as the starting point in English for their work, had the following on its title page:

 The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New
 Authorised and appointed to be read in churches

 Thus, the 1611 KJV was not the first to have this title or name the Holy Bible. The 1611 KJV merely kept this name from the title page of the Bishops' Bible, even though the Church of England makers of the KJV made hundreds and thousands of changes to the text of the Bishops' Bible.

The Holy Bible [English translation] in the Bishops' Bible is not the same as the Holy Bible [English translation] in the 1611 KJV even though both had the same name on their title page.  One important difference between the title page of the Bishops' Bible and that of the KJV was that the KJV's title page did not have the word "authorized" on it.  To distinguish between an earlier English Bible translation and the KJV, it would soon be referred to as King James' version or translation or the translation made during the time of King James.

 Some editions of the KJV were printed with the title The Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and New while other editions were printed with the title The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments.

 The 1833 Webster's Bible had the following on its title page:

 The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments in the common version with amendments to the language by Noah Webster.

 In 1842, an English Bible had the following on its title page:

 The Holy Bible, being the English Version of the Old and New Testament, made by order of King James I,
 carefully revised and amended by several Biblical scholars.
 Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1842.

 In 1901, the American Standard Version was published with this title:

 The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues.

 A. D. 1901
 Standard Edition
 New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901.

The non-specific general name "the Holy Bible" does not identify to which Bible text or to which Bible translation someone is referring.

One of the leading arguments for a KJV-only view in several books by KJV-only authors is a two-streams-of-Bibles argument. One stream is identified as the pure stream of Bibles by KJV-only authors and the other stream is claimed to be a corrupt stream of Bibles.

One of the Bibles placed on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles is the 1535 Coverdale's Bible.  The 1535 Coverdale's Bible is one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

 Peter Ruckman listed the 1535 Coverdale's Bible on his good tree of Bibles. D. A. Waite wrote: “The Coverdale Bible (1535) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). In another book, D. A. Waite listed Coverdale's as being based on “the Traditional Text/Textus Receptus” (Foes, p. 38; see also Central Seminary Refuted, p. 110). Thomas Holland indicated that Coverdale's was “based on the Traditional Text” (Crowned with Glory, p. 77). Bob Steward maintained that Coverdale’s Bible “is the product of the Received Text” (God’s Invisible Hand, p. 11). Dick Cimino suggested that the 1535 Coverdale's came “from the same type Greek Text” as the KJV (The Book, p. 14). David Daniels identified Coverdale's Bible as an Antiochian Bible (Answers, p. 18). James C. Kahler included Coverdale's Bible in his circle of Bibles that “came directly from the Traditional Text line and were good Bibles” (Charted History, p. 25).

 Gail Riplinger suggested that Coverdale “compared pure Holy Bibles in various languages” (In Awe, p. 37). Gail Riplinger asserted that Coverdale “was intimately involved in the process of the Bible’s being ’given’ (2 Tim. 3:16) and ’purified’ (Ps. 12:6, 7) in English” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1165). Riplinger maintained that “God entrusted Wycliffe and Coverdale with the transmission of the text” (p. 1167).

Here are some facts from the 1535 Coverdale's Bible on the KJV-only pure stream of Bibles which KJV-only authors seem to keep hidden or which they avoid or dodge. Some of the spelling in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible is updated to be more like that in present KJV editions.

Leviticus 26:31 in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible
 And your cities will I make waste, and bring your churches to naught, and will not smell your sweet odours.

Job 7:12
 Am I a see or a whalefish, that thou keepest me so in prison?

Isaiah 12:2a
 Behold, God is my health

Ezekiel 45:21
 Upon the xiiii day of the first month ye shall keep Easter. Seven days hall the feast continue, wherein there shall no sower nor leavened bread be eat

Daniel 3:25c
 and the fourth is like an angel to look upon

Hosea 8:14a
 they have forgotten him that made them, they build churches, and Juda maketh many strong cities

Amos 7:9a
 but the high hillchapels of Isaac must be laid waste, and the churches of Israel made desolate

Matthew 1:23a
 Behold, a maid shall be with child

Matthew 3:8
 Beware, bring forth due fruits of penance

Matthew 8:6a
 saying, Sir, my servant lyeth sick at home of the palsy

Matthew 12:41b
 for they did penance according to the preaching of Jonas

Mark 15:6
 At that feast of Easter he was wont to deliver unto them a prisoner, whom so ever they would desire

Luke 2:22a
And when the days of their purification after the law of Moses, were come

Luke 2:33
 And his father and mother marveled at the things that were spoke of him

Luke 2:41
 And his elders went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of Easter

Luke 10:13c
 they had done penance long ago, sitting in sack cloth and in ashes

Luke 11:32b
 for they did penance after the preaching of Jonas

Luke 15:7a
 I say unto you: Even so shall there be joy in heaven over one sinner that doth penance

Luke 22:1
 The feast of sweet bread (which is called Easter) drew nigh

John 3:16a
 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son

John 14:2
 In my fathers house are many dwellings

 Acts 3:19a
 Do penance now therefore and turn you

 Acts 26:20b
 that they should do penance, and turn unto God, and to do the right works of penance

Romans 8:5b
 but they that are ghostly, are ghostly minded

1 Corinthians 16:8
 But I will tarry at Ephesus until Whitsuntide

Revelation 1:10a
 I was in the spirit on a Sunday

 Do KJV-only advocates apply the same measures or standards justly to the 1535 Coverdale's Bible that they would attempt to apply inconsistently and unjustly to the NKJV?

Bibliophiles / Quiz on KJV associated with a new book
« on: February 08, 2018, 04:07:03 PM »
This link has a quiz about the meaning of some words in the KJV, and it may have information about a new book about how some words were used in the KJV.

Bible Versions / 1611 KJV's title page and its images
« on: October 23, 2017, 05:55:59 PM »
KJV defender Laurence Vance acknowledged that “the engraved title page depicts the Trinity in the upper panel in the form of the Divine Name, a dove, and a lamb” (King James, His Bible, p. 55).   Gordon Campbell maintained that “the godhead is represented by symbols rather than pictorial representation” (Bible, p. 100).   Concerning the engraved 1611 title page, Alister McGrath maintained that “the upper panel depicts the Trinity in a conventional style” (In the Beginning, p. 207).   McGrath noted that “the ‘lamb and flag’ is generally interpreted as a symbol of the resurrection of the crucified Christ” (p. 209).   Benson Bobrick affirmed that the 1611 title page depicted “the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove” (Wide as the Waters, p. 252).

 At the bottom of the title page of the 1611 KJV, Geddes MacGregor observed that it has “a traditional symbol of the redeeming work of Christ, especially in the Eucharist--a pelican ‘vulning’ herself, that is, wounding herself with her beak to feed her young with her own blood” (Literary History, p. 205).

 Concerning the 1611 title page, Derek Wilson asserted that “an interesting feature is the inclusion of Catholic imagery” (People’s Bible, p. 123).   Gordon Campbell claimed: “The figure of Peter is strikingly Catholic: not only is he the sole possessor of the keys (whereas on the Coverdale cover all apostles have been issued with keys), but he is paired with Paul on either side of the godhead, which is the normal arrangement in Catholic altarpieces” (Bible, pp. 100-101).

 Derek Wilson noted: “The apostles are shown with the traditional symbols of their martyrdom and, at the foot of the page, there is a drawing of a pelican in her piety (a heraldic device depicting a pelican feeding her young with her own blood), which Catholic convention employed to represent the sacrifice of Christ in the mass” (People’s Bible, p. 123).   Alister McGrath observed: “There is a curious irony to this symbol. In the Middle Ages, the image of a pelican came to be linked with the Lord’s Supper or Mass, especially with the medieval ecclesiastical feast of Corpus Christi” (In the Beginning, p. 210).   Benson Bobrick maintained that the 1611 title page has “a pelican (symbol of Christ) shown feeding her young with blood from her own breast” (Wide as the Waters, p. 252).

Could these three English Bibles be considered basically the same or are they very different?  KJV-only authors have described the Geneva Bible and the KJV as being "practically identical" or "basically the same" Bibles?  Do these three English Bibles belong to the same line or family of Bibles or to different lines?

 In this book, important terms related to Bible translations such as inspiration, preservation, authority, translation, and Scripture are discussed and considered.

 In my new 200+ page book, a number of serious KJV-only allegations made against the NKJV are considered in the light of many facts from and facts concerning the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV.

 This extensive research and comparison of these three English Bibles have led to results that may surprise some, especially KJV-only advocates.  Pages of example places where the Geneva Bible differs from both the KJV and the NKJV are provided.   Many pages of examples where the Geneva Bible and the NKJV basically agree while the KJV differs more is also provided.   Several pages of possible textual differences between the Geneva Bible and the KJV are also listed.

 The book is available at the on-demand publisher: 

Bible Versions / Greek manuscript used by Erasmus for Revelation
« on: May 14, 2015, 12:04:43 PM »
Concerning manuscript 1’ [min. 2814], Robert Waltz wrote: “Noteworthy primarily as the single Greek manuscript used by Erasmus to prepare the Apocalypse of his 1516 New Testament” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 1037).

 Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412).

 John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312).

The Greek manuscript that Erasmus used for the book of Revelation was missing its last page and did not have the last six verses of the book.  KJV defender Thomas Holland wrote:  “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). 

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text.  Henry Alford observed:  “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8).  In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted:  “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135).  James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91).  Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82).  In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation asserted “the sacred text is here mixed up with the commentary of Andreas,” and he noted:  “Owing to this cause, Erasmus omitted, from his first three editions, chapter 21:26” (Vol. IV, p. 462).

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV may have some editing or printing inconsistencies concerning the case of pronouns. 

In an article entitled “Ye and You in the King James Version,” John S. Kenyon claimed:  “In three cases [Gen. 9:7, Gen. 45:8, Job 12:3] nominative you in the text escaped Blayney, and consequently stands in our present day Bibles” (Publication of the Modern Language Association, Vol. XXIX, pp. 459-460).  David Norton asserted:  “’And you, be ye fruitful’ (Gen. 9:7) escapes him [Blayney], though he does change the one other example of this construction ‘and you, in any wise keep yourselves‘ (Josh. 6:18) to ‘and ye …’” (Textual History, p. 113).  Concerning Genesis 45:8, Isaac Nordheimer rendered it:  “Ye did not send me hither or it was not ye that sent me hither” (Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language, p. 264).  Nordheimer again commented:  “Ye did not send me hither, but God, lit. ye did not send me hither for it was God who sent me” (p. 287).  The pronoun at Genesis 45:8 just as at Matthew 10:20 and Mark 13:11 should be in nominative case because a pronoun used as a subject complement after a be verb is put in that case. 

In his article, John Kenyon maintained that “in the case of turn ye (you), Blayney is less consistent” (Publication, p. 463).  Kenyon asked:  “Why should he change turn ye (Zech 9:12) to turn you, (since the Hebrew has the reflexive) but leave turn ye in Leviticus 19:4, 2 Kings 17:13, Isaiah 31:6, Jeremiah 25:5, Ezekiel 33:11, Joel 2:12, Zechariah 1:3, 4, from the same Hebrew simple form of the verb?” (Ibid.).  Kenyon asserted:  “Similarly, Blayney should consistently have changed Jeremiah 49:14 ‘Gather ye together, & come against her, …’ for ye was doubtless intended as a reflexive object.  The Hebrew form is reflexive, as it is in 1 Samuel 22:2; 2 Chronicles 20:4, gathered themselves; Ezekiel 39:17, assemble your selves” (p. 464).  Kenyon claimed:  “It is probable, therefore, that in Jeremiah 49:14 we have an objective ye in our modern Bibles” (Ibid.).  The 1560 Geneva Bible has “gather you together” at Jeremiah 49:14.   

Genesis 9:7 [see Josh. 6:18, Ezek. 36:8, 1 Cor. 14:9]
And ye, be ye {1660 London}
And you, be ye (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 45:8 [see Matt. 10:20, Mark 13:11--it is not ye that speak; Ps. 55:13] [you sent not--1560 Geneva; it was not ye that sent--1602 Bishops]
it was not you that sent {1611, 1616, 1631 London}
it was not you that sent (1782 Aitken)
it was not ye that sent (1675 Oxford) {1660 London}
it was not you that sent (1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1743, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1778 Cambridge] (1700 MP)
it was not you that sent (1715, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629 Cambridge, DKJB]

Job 12:3 [as well as you--1560 Geneva; as well as ye--1602 Bishops] [compare Acts 10:47--as well as we] [compare Deut. 5:12--as well as thou] [compare Ezek. 42:11--as long as they] [compare 1 Cor. 14:18] [compare 2 Sam. 19:43--than ye]
I have understanding as well as ye {1660 London}
I have understanding as well as you (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


The 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV along with other pre-1611 English Bibles are placed on the KJV-only view's "pure" stream of Bibles or good tree of Bibles. The fact of actual textual differences on the KJV-only view's "pure" stream would be a serious problem for their two-separate-streams-of-Bibles argument or two separate lines-of-Bibles argument.

How would it be possible for there to be any actual conflicting textual differences or textual corruption in a 100% pure stream or line of Bibles?

I know of no source that provides a list of the actual textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1611 KJV that some have claimed are "practically identical" or are basically the same Bibles. I have seen mention of a couple differences in some non-KJV-only sources such as at Luke 17:36 or at John 14:1, but no suggestion that there was over 20 textual differences. All these differences are not found in those later editions of the Geneva Bible that had Laurence Tomson's 1576 New Testament instead of the 1560 Geneva Bible NT.

For example, Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566). Riplinger asserted that “generally speaking, the early English Bibles are the same” (p. 130; Hidden History, p. 37). Riplinger asserted that “the words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 859). Riplinger even indicated that those previous early English Bibles “were no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJB” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 59). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text underlying the King James Version” (Which Bible Is God‘s Word, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot [which was an edition of the Geneva Bible] as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). Riplinger claimed: “According to the rules of translation, the [KJV] translators’ final authority was early English Bibles, particularly the Bishops’” (Hidden History, p. 41).

This is not presented as being a complete list. This will give those interested in learning the facts and the truth some starting places to check in comparing the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV.

While some of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have other textual differences because based on Erasmus's earlier Greek editions such as not having Mark 11:26, Revelation 21:26, and a textual difference at Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:22, this list will also serve to indicate some of the actual textual differences in the varying Textus Receptus editions and in the Greek manuscripts on which those TR editions were based.

Likely Textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV
Matthew 1:11 "Jacim. And Jacim begat" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in the 1611 KJV] [see also 1611 edition's marginal note]

Matthew 26:26
and when he had given thanks [1560 Geneva Bible]
and blessed it [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Mark 8:14
And they had forgotten [1560 Geneva Bible]
Now the disciples had forgotten [1611 KJV] [the 1769 KJV edition would put "the disciples" in italics by comparison to the 1550 Stephanus TR edition, but this textual difference is found in an edition of Beza likely followed by the KJV translators]

Mark 8:24
I see men for I see them walking like trees [1560 Geneva Bible]
I see men as trees, walking [1611 KJV]

Mark 9:16
among yourselves [1560 Geneva Bible]
with them [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Mark 15:3 "but he answered not" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles]

Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note]

Did the KJV remove words from the text of the pre-1611 consensus English Bible and put them in a marginal note?

Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 edition's marginal note]

John 8:6 "as though he heard them not" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

John 8:59 "going through the midst of them, and so passed by" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

John 14:1 "And he said to his disciples" [1560 Geneva] [these words found in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles are not in KJV]

Acts 25:6
no more than ten days [1560 Geneva]
more than ten days [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Romans 5:17
by the offence of one [1560 Geneva]
by one man's offence [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Romans 8:11
because that his Spirit [1560 Geneva Bible]
by his Spirit [1611 KJV]
[see 1611 marginal note, and see Edward F. Hills' book KJV Defended, p. 222 where he presented this as a textual difference between the TR editions by Beza and those by Erasmus and Stephanus]

Romans 16:20
with you. [1560 Geneva Bible]
with you. Amen. [1611 KJV]

1 Corinthians 15:31
our rejoicing [1560 Geneva]
your rejoicing [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

James 2:18
out of thy works [1560 Geneva Bible]
without thy works [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

1 John 2:23b
[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also
[this second half of this verse in KJV is not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

1 John 3:16
love [1560 Geneva Bible]
love of God [1611 KJV] [the 1769 KJV would later put the words "of God" in italics based on the 1550 Stephanus, but Greek words for "of God" may be in an edition by Beza]

Revelation 2:24
I say, the rest [1560 Geneva]
I say, and unto the rest [1611 KJV] [According to what I have read, one or more of Beza's TR editions have an "and" not in earlier TR editions]

Revelation 5:11
elders, & there were thousand thousands [1560 Geneva Bible]
elders, and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands [1611 KJV]

Revelation 16:5
and Holy [1560 Geneva Bible]
and shall be [1611 KJV] [KJV followed conjecture introduced by Beza in his Greek text]

Revelation 17:5
mother of whoredoms [1560 Geneva Bible]
mother of harlots [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Can anyone present a list of claimed textual differences between the KJV and the NKJV that are greater than those listed above between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV that KJV-only advocates have asserted are "basically the same Bibles" or are "practically identical" and that are placed on the same pure stream of Bibles?

Do these facts suggest that there would be a stronger case for the NKJV being on that pure stream of Bibles than for the Geneva Bible?

Pages: [1] 2