Anyway, the 1560 Geneva Bible was already the widely accepted, read, loved, believed, tried and true English version before 1611 so critiquing the ladder [the KJV] against the one that came before it should be acceptable reasoning according to your own stated reasoning, UGC. The Scriptures had been translated into English many years before 1611.And anyway, the KJV was already the widely accepted, tried and true version it was by 1881 so critiquing the ladder against the one that came before it is acceptable reasoning, it is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be if you tried to defend the New Version's readings for their own sake over the KJV's.
Will KJV-only advocates accept trying or critiquing the KJV by the widely-accepted, tried and true 1560 Geneva Bible that came before it.
UGC, does a consistent, just application of your own statement assert that it would be circular reasoning to try to defend a new version's readings in 1611 for their own sake over the Geneva Bible's? Will you apply your own stated reasoning consistently and justly?
When compared to the same standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, there are some (likely many) places where the 1560 Geneva Bible can soundly be considered better, clearer, and more accurate than the 1611 KJV is.
How many hundreds or likely thousands of changes and revisions did the Church of England men in 1611 make to the widely-accepted 1560 Geneva Bible?
Did the Church of England makers of the KJV make the same-type changes to the 1560 Geneva Bible that the NKJV translators made to the NKJV?