Actually what the 1611 KJVO advocates claim is THE only TRUE Bible for ALL human beings past, present, & future haven't done any really serious historical works beyond that of their own preconceived notions. EXAMPLES: Some 1611 KJVO advocates claim that THEIR Bible is "Authorized,' which it is, but NOT as some would want us to believe by GOD HIMSELF. To the contrary, the KJV was actually "Authorized" by King James VI of Scotland. He was determined by the English Parliament (Then controlled by its House of Lords--those who had mainly inherited titles of nobility usually from their family's 'Noble One.') to be the nearest successor to the English throne upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I---but even his successorship was called into question by some because he wasn't a direct relative of the Tudor Family. James VI was of the Stuard "Dynasty. His mother was none other than Mary, Queen of the Scots & a supporter of the RCCH in Scotland (She shouldn't be confused with the English Queen, "Bloody" Mary, although each rather consistently supported the RCCh in their respective kingdoms.) And, just why did James VI / I "authorize" a new English translation of the Bible? It was NOT that he personally had that much of a "Godly" desire for a more readable English Bible, but rather that he couldn't stand all the marginal notes of the Puritians' Geneva Bible. The Puritans (Whose initial goal was merely to "Purify" THE Church of England (a/k/a The Anglican Church). While the Puritans should be commended to an extent, that was primarily their initial goal: To "purify" the Church of England, which was merely a breakaway "Church" from Rome under Henry VIII. He desired some "Church" approval of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon of Spain. ( Aragon was a region in the Iberian Peninsula. Henry 8th really only wanted to have some title of the wealth that Spain had been realizing from her "less than humane treatment" of the native peoples of the newly discovered gold mines in the New World.) Marriages between ruling families of Europe back in those days was more of a political &/or economic factor. If there happened to be any "romantic affections" between the H & W, fine; if not. so what, "Show Me The MONEY" was really the main goal "back in the good old days"!! ANWAY, the Geneva Bible was replete with not very flattering marginal notes of most of the OT kings. James VI was already fed up with Scottish Reformers such as John Knox & Co. That's mainly why the new English king "Authorized" this new English-language translation. OTOH, to their credit, the various translating committees from Cambridge & York DID a good job of translating into contemporary 17th century English. OTOH, printing errors seemed to permeate most of the latest editions of their work. EX: One edition "Slightly Modified" the Commandment of "Thou shalt NOT commit adulltry" by omitting "NOT" in an edition dating back to the early 1630s. So much for the "infallibility" of the KJV!! The 1611 version underwent a series of revisions beginnging in 1689 & continuing on to the late 1800s when Westcott & Hort produced their "revision." Actually the 1611 KJV took its NT translation from what's commonly referred to as "The Received Text." but the RT was NOT received from God in Heaven. The RT was primarily the work of two humanist Greek scholars Erasmus & Stephanus. Their work was probably as good a Greek text as could be had, but to claim "Immortal Infalliblity" for it is. IMHO, a stretch. I've read several KJVO texts & found that most of them conveniently gloss over what are actual errors. EX: Acts 12:3 in the KJV has the word "Easter" where in should read the Jewish "Passover." Moreover, English is a "living" language (unlike Classical Greek & Latin). Words and/or their meanings do change somewhat over the centuries. EX: In James 2:2 ff the KJV mentions a person in GAY attire. To the 17th century reader that term simply meant "fashionable" &/or "rich." Today GAY means something quite different. So you see, IMHO, Yes, the 1611 KJV version does do a very good overall job in conveying the majority of God's Word for English-speaking people. OTOH, how about those who speak only, say Spanish or French or Arabic, etc. As I posted in the beginning of this post, to claim that the 1611 KJV is THE ONLY VERBALLY INSPIRIED Word of God is something that needs to be re-examined. If it works for you, fine; but to adamantly insist the the 1611 KJV is the ONLY VERBALLY (& thus complete) Word of God for all mankind is not something I'd be willing to die for.
