Could the 1611 KJV Have Been Better [booklet]

A new 50+ page booklet that provides important evidence concerning several ways that the 1611 edition of the KJV could have been better is now available at the web site below.

First, evidence concerning the KJV's ties with the Bishops' Bible is presented. Second, valid evidence shows that some of the "errors" in the 1611 edition blamed on the printers were the responsibility of the KJV translators. Third, several pages of examples are given were the KJV translators could have taken a seemingly better rendering from one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles but instead kept the Bishops' Bible's rendering. Fourth, more examples are given where the KJV followed or introduced renderings where one of more pre-1611 English Bibles already had a good one. Next, several pages of examples are given where the 1611 KJV followed a rendering in the 1582 Rheims N. T. Sixth, evidence concerning five of the claimed fourteen changes introduced into the 1611 text by Archbishop Richard Bancroft or another prelate is presented. Seventh, observations and evidence concerning the KJV-only view's preserved stream, line, or tree of good Bibles are presented.


Click here: Could the 1611 KJV Have Been Better: Not Just the Printers' Fault? by Rick Norris (Book) in Religion & Spiritualit
http://www.lulu.com/content/510986

 

Have you read this booklet? How is providing accurate documented information about the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV supposed to be undermining God's Word? What specific information in this booklet do you claim actually undermines God's Word?