Is the 1982 NKJV a more accurate and better overall English translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible?
Since there are not likely very many English-speakers who read the 1560 Geneva Bible, many may regard this as an unimportant question. A good number of KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates have praised the 1560 Geneva Bible, one of pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The 1560 Geneva Bible is on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles.
On the other hand, many KJV-only advocates are very negative towards the NKJV and strongly condemn or attack it. Do KJV-only advocates use a different measure/standard for the NKJV than they use in their praise for the Geneva Bible? Is there sound evidence of the use of unjust divers measures or double standards in KJV-only reasoning?
Since there are not likely very many English-speakers who read the 1560 Geneva Bible, many may regard this as an unimportant question. A good number of KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates have praised the 1560 Geneva Bible, one of pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The 1560 Geneva Bible is on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles.
On the other hand, many KJV-only advocates are very negative towards the NKJV and strongly condemn or attack it. Do KJV-only advocates use a different measure/standard for the NKJV than they use in their praise for the Geneva Bible? Is there sound evidence of the use of unjust divers measures or double standards in KJV-only reasoning?