KJV-only author David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). Cloud asserted that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles." He wrote: "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48). David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). Cloud also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). Cloud asserted: “In fact, the King James Bible is a revision of that line of Received Text English Bibles stretching back to Tyndale in 1524” (For Love of the Bible, p. 8). Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198).
Likewise, James Rasbeary maintained that the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV were “basically the same” and that “all came from the same text--the Received Text,“ and that “they translated word for word” (What’s Wrong with the Old Black Book, p. 91). Chester Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Ray McBerry asserted that the KJV “exhibited very few differences from the Geneva Bible, even down to the word-for-word rendering” (Clash of Swords, p. 113). Troy Clark described the Geneva Bible as the “first complete Majority Text English Bible formally translated from the original Hebrew and Greek languages” (Perfect Bible, p. 158). Troy Clark suggested that each of the pre-1611 English Bibles “ALWAYS contained the same Majority Text Scripture” (p. 133). Troy Clark asserted: “Different names never means different Bibles in the succession of Majority Text Holy Scriptures” (pp. 133-134).
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).
Do those who read and use only the KJV think that the Geneva Bible or one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV are "basically the same" or are "practically identical" in agreement with one or more of the above statements?
Likewise, James Rasbeary maintained that the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV were “basically the same” and that “all came from the same text--the Received Text,“ and that “they translated word for word” (What’s Wrong with the Old Black Book, p. 91). Chester Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Ray McBerry asserted that the KJV “exhibited very few differences from the Geneva Bible, even down to the word-for-word rendering” (Clash of Swords, p. 113). Troy Clark described the Geneva Bible as the “first complete Majority Text English Bible formally translated from the original Hebrew and Greek languages” (Perfect Bible, p. 158). Troy Clark suggested that each of the pre-1611 English Bibles “ALWAYS contained the same Majority Text Scripture” (p. 133). Troy Clark asserted: “Different names never means different Bibles in the succession of Majority Text Holy Scriptures” (pp. 133-134).
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).
Do those who read and use only the KJV think that the Geneva Bible or one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV are "basically the same" or are "practically identical" in agreement with one or more of the above statements?
