Questions for those holding to KJVO Position

[Servant of Jehovah]

The revised 1629 Cambridge of the KJV corrected some of the errors kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible that had been left uncorrected in the 1611 edition. David Norton maintained that a clear error in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at 1 Kings 8:61 [“the Lord your God”] was kept in the 1611 edition while the 1568 Bishops’ Bible had the correct rendering [‘the Lord our God’” (Textual History, p. 36). The 1611 KJV edition also kept uncorrected the error of the name of the wrong group of people “Amorites” (1 Kings 11:5) that is in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible. Could failure to correct this error of fact from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible make the KJV translators responsible for this error being in the 1611 KJV? KJV-only author Jack McElroy claimed that the Lord “won’t accept material error (i.e., errors of fact, history, geography, Science, & doctrine) in his holy book” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 472). David Norton noted: “In both cases earlier editions of the Bishops’ Bible and the other versions all had the correct reading; the errors were picked up and corrected in 1629” (Textual History, p. 36). The 1629 Cambridge in agreement with the Hebrew, with the 1560 Geneva Bible, and with the 1568 Bishops’ Bible has the correct name of the right group of people “Ammonites” at 1 Kings 11:5. In another example, David Norton also observed that “the present tense at Acts 23:3, ‘then saith Paul,‘ where the Greek and the context require the past, also comes from the 1602 text” while the 1568 Bishops’ text had “then said Paul” (Textual History, p. 36). David Norton suggested that the keeping of errors from the 1602 text is “important for establishing that the [KJV] translators were fallible in their attention to the text: sometimes they nodded” (Ibid.). David Norton asserted: “Several times a Bishops’ Bible mistake creeps apparently unnoticed into the KJB text” (KJB: Short History, p. 130). At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition has the name of the wrong king “Jehoiachin,” introduced from the 1602 edition’s “Joachin.” If the KJV translators had noticed this error of fact at 2 King 24:19 in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, they failed to make sure that the printers at London corrected it since it remained in editions of the KJV printed at London in 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, and 1698. Would Jack McElroy suggest that since the 1611 edition and some other KJV editions are factually and historically wrong in its renderings at 1 Kings 11:5 and 2 Kings 24:19 that it was the Lord Jesus Christ who allowed these errors to appear in the KJV (Bible Version Secrets, p. 202)? The 1629 Cambridge edition corrected this error of fact in the 1611 edition with the name of the right king Jehoiakim.

The revised 1629 Cambridge KJV introduced the rendering “in utterance” at 2 Corinthians 8:7 and introduced “thy doctrine” at 1 Timothy 4:16. In The New Englander (Vol. 37, September, 1878), this is stated: “In 1629 a typographical error crept in a Cambridge edition, which re-appeared for many years, so that 1 Timothy 4:16 read ‘Take heed unto thyself and unto thy doctrine,’ for ‘the doctrine’” (p. 701).

The correction “GOD” for “God” at Genesis 6:5 was likely first introduced in the 1629. At Deuteronomy 26:1, 1629 Cambridge put the correction “the LORD thy God” for the 1611’s edition’s “the LORD.” KJV-only author Jack McElroy wrote: “The 1611 translators decided to drop the literal ‘Thy God.’ We know this because the 1602 Bishop’s Bible they used as a printer’s model had the words Thy God crossed out” (Which Bible, p. 197). Concerning Deuteronomy 5:29 and its rendering “keep all my commandments,” David Norton asserted: “1629 corrects by the Hebrew” (Textual History, p. 222). About the rendering “the sacrifices” instead of the 1611’s “the sacrifice,” David Norton declared: “1629 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew” (p. 212).

At Judges 21:19, the 1611 edition may have followed the Bishops’ Bible with its rendering “Lebanon” while the revised 1629 Cambridge edition adopted the 1560 Geneva Bible’s rendering “Lebonah.” Concerning “to thy mischief” at 2 Samuel 16:8, Scrivener wrote: “The Translators give what they hold to be the general sense in the text, reserving a more literal rendering for the margin” (Authorized Edition, p. 219, footnote 2). The 1611 marginal note at 2 Samuel 16:8 stated: “Hebr. behold thee in thy evil.” The revised 1629 Cambridge takes the “in” from the more literal rendering in the 1611 marginal note and puts it in the text instead of the 1611 edition’s “to”. It was the standard 1629 Cambridge edition that substituted “travel” at Numbers 20:14 for the 1611 edition’s “travail” although “travel” was first found in a 1614 London edition.

So we're talking about the Apocrypha, and you stated David Norton mentioned it being in the 1629, but there's nothing here that hints towards it having actually been in it. From 1638 onward, I've actually looked at photoscans of different editions of the KJV. I get the 1629 information from Dr. Stringer, and seemingly there's no information being provided that proves him wrong.

 

[Logos1560]

I get the 1629 information from Dr. Stringer, and seemingly there's no information being provided that proves him wrong.

David Norton's book A Textual History of the King James Bible would prove Stringer's unsupported and unproven claim wrong. The fact that the 1629 Cambridge edition introduced some changes and corrections to the text of the Apocrypha as found in the 1611 edition is proof that it was in the 1629. See pages 299-327. The fact that the 1629 Cambridge introduced those changes is compelling evidence that it was included in it.

David Norton wrote: "Characteristic of this care is the change to 1 Maccabees 5:13. The 1629 editors noticed and corrected an error of punctuation, so saving the lives of wives and children" (The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today, p. 142).

In the 1629 Cambridge, David Norton noted that "'saw I' becoming 'I saw' (2 Esdras 13:12)" (p. 143).

F. H. A. Scrivener in his 1884 book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representations also pointed out where the 1629 Cambridge edition and 1638 Cambridge edition of the KJV made changes or corrections to the text of the Apocrypha as found in the 1611 edition. See pages 175-185.

 

[Logos1560]

No offense, but I didn't ask for a lecture on the 1769.

The point of the information concerning the 1769 Cambridge was to prove that Phil Stringer is uninformed and misinformed concerning editions of the KJV. You keep ignoring the fact that Phil Stringer makes factually incorrect claims concerning editions of the KJV, showing that you should not blindly trust and repeat his claims.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I am not a Greek expert (as I've already stated), so I will not try and argue this. But I do think it's a bit of a double standard to accuse English itself to be flawed.

How is it a double standard?

Greek has a perfect tense. English does not.

I already shared 4 words translated by only one english word.

Other words. (like baptism) are not even native english words. they are a transliteration of a greek word. this mistake has caused massive division in the church when it comes to baptism..

Let's pretend for a moment that God had inspired His Word in English rather than Greek. I assume you have used the reverse of this argument—that Greek is flawed for having used more words for love than the English did.

Well he did not. so I have to just look at the evidence. as I already stated..

and no I would not do this. I would wonder why God made such a mistake when he could have had it written in a far greater language in which it is much easier to make your point. and far less difficult to cause confusion.

That's not a flaw of English, because I don't really believe any language can have "flaws" in the fullest sense.

put two languages together. and then compair them

In comparison the english language is flawed in its attempt to properly interpret a greek text due to its inherent flaws Again, I gave a few examples above..

I will use another example.

eph 2: 8 for it is by grace we have been saved.

Saved in the english is a past tense word. It means I was saved at some time in the past. but has no bearing on if that salvation continues today, or will continue into the future

Saved in the greek is in the perfect tense. "sesosmenoi" it is written in the perfect tense. It literally means to be rescued.. This also is somethign that happened in the past. yet we kinow it is a completed action. It continues today. and will continue forever.

this is just one of the flaws of the English language, it does not have a perfect tense. so the interpreters must do the best they can with what they have.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

David Norton's book A Textual History of the King James Bible would prove Stringer's unsupported and unproven claim wrong. The fact that the 1629 Cambridge edition introduced some changes and corrections to the text of the Apocrypha as found in the 1611 edition is proof that it was in the 1629. See pages 299-327. The fact that the 1629 Cambridge introduced those changes is compelling evidence that it was included in it.

David Norton wrote: "Characteristic of this care is the change to 1 Maccabees 5:13. The 1629 editors noticed and corrected an error of punctuation, so saving the lives of wives and children" (The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today, p. 142).

In the 1629 Cambridge, David Norton noted that "'saw I' becoming 'I saw' (2 Esdras 13:12)" (p. 143).

F. H. A. Scrivener in his 1884 book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representations also pointed out where the 1629 Cambridge edition and 1638 Cambridge edition of the KJV made changes or corrections to the text of the Apocrypha as found in the 1611 edition. See pages 175-185.

See, it wasn't hard to provide citations. I don't get why you had to go off on irrelevant data. I will have to look at the Scrivener quote some more and consider.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

How is it a double standard?

Greek has a perfect tense. English does not.

I already shared 4 words translated by only one english word.

I think that this is actually wrong. I'm no Greek expert (as I've said multiple times), but one can look up the Greek words and see how the KJV translates them—it uses more than just one single word.

Other words. (like baptism) are not even native english words. they are a transliteration of a greek word. this mistake has caused massive division in the church when it comes to baptism..

There was a Baptist Bible publish in the 1800's that changed Baptism to immersing, but it never caught on. The Greek means to immerse, and when they translated that meaning, it didn't get anywhere. So I'd say it's not going to work.

Well he did not. so I have to just look at the evidence. as I already stated..

and no I would not do this. I would wonder why God made such a mistake when he could have had it written in a far greater language in which it is much easier to make your point. and far less difficult to cause confusion.

So if God had decided to use English instead of Greek, you would have said God made a mistake? Frankly, I'd say you have a predetermined bias, which makes you say that God has to follow what you want, otherwise you'd think He made a mistake. I would never say something so blatantly wrong.

put two languages together. and then compair them

In comparison the english language is flawed in its attempt to properly interpret a greek text due to its inherent flaws Again, I gave a few examples above..

The thing is, English is closer to Greek than it is to Hebrew or other such languages.

I will use another example.

eph 2: 8 for it is by grace we have been saved.

Saved in the english is a past tense word. It means I was saved at some time in the past. but has no bearing on if that salvation continues today, or will continue into the future

Saved in the greek is in the perfect tense. "sesosmenoi" it is written in the perfect tense. It literally means to be rescued.. This also is somethign that happened in the past. yet we kinow it is a completed action. It continues today. and will continue forever.

this is just one of the flaws of the English language, it does not have a perfect tense. so the interpreters must do the best they can with what they have.

And yet the KJV does not say "for it is by grace we have been saved."

Ephesians 2:8 KJV — "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

The fact that it uses "are" instead of "have been" means it's present, not simply past tense.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I think that this is actually wrong. I'm no Greek expert (as I've said multiple times), but one can look up the Greek words and see how the KJV translates them—it uses more than just one single word.

Actually, you are wrong

In Jesus conversation with Peter. He asked, Peter do you love me,

peter responded, yeah lord, you know I love you.

We all know this passage. and it is great. Jesus is restoring peter. he asked him three times, for the three times Peter denied him

The problem is, Although it is adequate to just use one word love. It is not complete.

Because in the greek. Jesus and peter used two words. Not one

Jesus asked, Do you agape me

Peter responded. I phileo you

This happened twice

the thrid time, Jesus asked. Peter do you phileo you. Which caused a reaction from Peter.

you can not get this deep meaning in any english text. period.

There was a Baptist Bible publish in the 1800's that changed Baptism to immersing, but it never caught on. The Greek means to immerse, and when they translated that meaning, it didn't get anywhere. So I'd say it's not going to work.

Actually it means far more than to immerse.

if we look at ancient greek literature we see it used many ways. If we look in the Greek English lexicon, we see it is used of immersing in a liquid. Or being placed into union with someone or something, In bein placed into something, In being overwhelmed

To just use immerse would be to fail to grasp what may actually be being said.

(Yes I can be immersed in water. But what does it mean to be immersed in Christ or his death (rom 6)

So if God had decided to use English instead of Greek, you would have said God made a mistake? Frankly, I'd say you have a predetermined bias, which makes you say that God has to follow what you want, otherwise you'd think He made a mistake. I would never say something so blatantly wrong.

Well God would not make a mistake. that is why he chose to use the greek and not english.

The thing is, English is closer to Greek than it is to Hebrew or other such languages.

that does not make it equal to greek.

And yet the KJV does not say "for it is by grace we have been saved."

Ephesians 2:8 KJV — "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

The fact that it uses "are" instead of "have been" means it's present, not simply past tense.

you just proved my point

Its not present tense. it is perfect tense.

using the interpretation you just gave (I am used to the NKJV) I am saved through grace.

does it mean I am saved now. Was I saved then, am I in the process of being saved. will I be saved in the end.

Can not tell by this english interpretation

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Actually, you are wrong

In Jesus conversation with Peter. He asked, Peter do you love me,

peter responded, yeah lord, you know I love you.

We all know this passage. and it is great. Jesus is restoring peter. he asked him three times, for the three times Peter denied him

The problem is, Although it is adequate to just use one word love. It is not complete.

Because in the greek. Jesus and peter used two words. Not one

Jesus asked, Do you agape me

Peter responded. I phileo you

This happened twice

the thrid time, Jesus asked. Peter do you phileo you. Which caused a reaction from Peter.

you can not get this deep meaning in any english text. period.

You're limiting your scope to one single passage. I'm not even completely convinced that the different Greek words have that big of a meaning difference, but as I've mentioned and will mention again, I do not know Greek. If you take the Greek words and look at how they're translated throughout the New Testament, I am not wrong. There are multiple Greek words and multiple English words. Sure, it may not be a one to one "this particular English word only for this particular Greek word."

However, that's because Greek and English are both polysemic languages—words have multiple meanings. They must be translated according to context.

Actually it means far more than to immerse.

if we look at ancient greek literature we see it used many ways. If we look in the Greek English lexicon, we see it is used of immersing in a liquid. Or being placed into union with someone or something, In bein placed into something, In being overwhelmed

To just use immerse would be to fail to grasp what may actually be being said.

(Yes I can be immersed in water. But what does it mean to be immersed in Christ or his death (rom 6)

I think this is straining at gnats to be completely honest.

Well God would not make a mistake. that is why he chose to use the greek and not english.

that does not make it equal to greek.

I never claimed English was "equal" to Greek because what does that even mean? Each language has its own quirks, so I really dislike the idea you promote—that certain languages are somehow better than another inherently. Dr. Steve Combs uses Acts 17 to teach that God designed the different languages, so I would say no language is worse or better than any in any real sense.

you just proved my point

Its not present tense. it is perfect tense.

using the interpretation you just gave (I am used to the NKJV) I am saved through grace.

does it mean I am saved now. Was I saved then, am I in the process of being saved. will I be saved in the end.

Can not tell by this english interpretation

And if you reread what I said, you'd notice that the meaning of the KJV rendering seems (to my understanding) to match what you say the Greek says, in meaning if nothing else.

Additionally, in a thread about the KJV position, the assumption would be that the KJV is what is being discussed, not the NKJV.

 

[Logos1560]

I don't get why you had to go off on irrelevant data.

It was not irrelevant data to prove that Phil Stringer makes factually incorrect claims about editions of the KJV. You were misled by an unreliable source.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You're limiting your scope to one single passage. I'm not even completely convinced that the different Greek words have that big of a meaning difference,

I gave an example. there are many like it

Not a big difference?

but as I've mentioned and will mention again, I do not know Greek. If you take the Greek words and look at how they're translated throughout the New Testament, I am not wrong. There are multiple Greek words and multiple English words. Sure, it may not be a one to one "this particular English word only for this particular Greek word."

However, that's because Greek and English are both polysemic languages—words have multiple meanings. They must be translated according to context.


I think this is straining at gnats to be completely honest.


I never claimed English was "equal" to Greek because what does that even mean? Each language has its own quirks, so I really dislike the idea you promote—that certain languages are somehow better than another inherently. Dr. Steve Combs uses Acts 17 to teach that God designed the different languages, so I would say no language is worse or better than any in any real sense.


And if you reread what I said, you'd notice that the meaning of the KJV rendering seems (to my understanding) to match what you say the Greek says, in meaning if nothing else.

Additionally, in a thread about the KJV position, the assumption would be that the KJV is what is being discussed, not the NKJV.

No. The KJV does not match what I said

it is flawed as I explained. because we can not know past the usage of the English tense. because the English has no perfect tense (one of its flaws)

I guess try to study some greek. You will quickly see what I have been saying

 

[JesusFan]

I am not a Greek expert (as I've already stated), so I will not try and argue this. But I do think it's a bit of a double standard to accuse English itself to be flawed.

Let's pretend for a moment that God had inspired His Word in English rather than Greek. I assume you have used the reverse of this argument—that Greek is flawed for having used more words for love than the English did.

That's not a flaw of English, because I don't really believe any language can have "flaws" in the fullest sense.

Since the Originals alone were inspired and inerrant, and there is NO passage anywhere in them that support a perfect translation made off of them, then it follows that all translations are to some degree flawed, and that the 1611while best could be done for its time, was n ot perfect, and its ok to have it updated and revised and corrected

 

[JesusFan]

No offense, but I didn't ask for a lecture on the 1769. Those are foolish statements from those men, but I use the Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV as I believe it most properly reflects what the translators' work is when you remove the typographical errors.

That would be the 1873 Cambridge Kjv edition then?

 

[Conan]

And yet this is a common Protestant way of denoting the Apocrypha wasn't Scripture. The KJV clearly marked the Apocrypha as separate from the Testaments, and all the per-page headers simply said "Apocrypha."


Are 1629 and 1638 not major editions?

"King Charles the First, in 1638, had another edition printed at Cambridge, which was revised by Dr. Ward and Mr. Bois, two of the original Translators who still survived" McClure, A. W. The Translators Revived; A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible. Charles Scribner, 1853. p. 194.

Both 1629 and 1638 were done with the help of Samuel Ward and John Bois—two men from the original KJV committee. Additionally, the 1638 was commanded to be printed by King Charles himself. Thus, I do not know how you define "major editions," but I assume 1629 and 1638 would satisfy.

Yes they are major editions, and I am also sure they were included in those editions. See Logos 1560's post on the issue. Post #15 on this thread.

 

[Conan]

The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.

English Bible History

English Bible HistoryThe fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. The History of The English Bible & The History of The Christian Church Meet In The Protestant...

greatsite.com

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.

English Bible History

English Bible HistoryThe fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. The History of The English Bible & The History of The Christian Church Meet In The Protestant...

greatsite.com

the apocrypha is rejected by most. because of the contradictions they cause.. Not because they are catholic. Catholics need to stop thinking so highly of themselves. the whole world does not reject things just because the catholic church may believe it..

 

[Conan]

I am not Catholic. I am simply stating that the KJV, just like Luther's German translation and other such Protestant Bibles, placed the Apocrypha between the Testaments to denote they didn't believe it was Scripture.


I don't have to worry about that—I'm not Catholic. I have notes from when I've gone through some of the apocryphal books, and I know there are a lot of contradictions. That's why I could absolutely never accept them as Scripture.

This is from Great site below. The Apocrypha wasn't removed from KJV Bibles until much later than you had said.

English Bible History

English Bible HistoryThe fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. The History of The English Bible & The History of The Christian Church Meet In The Protestant...

greatsite.com

The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination

 

[Dave G]

Are the Hebrew and Greek texts in authority over that translation

Yes, they are.
However, please define "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, as there are at least three collated Greek texts in existence today, and two Hebrew that I'm aware of...
And there is no collated Greek text that makes a thorough use of all of the over 5,000 pieces of extant manuscript evidence that is now available.

For example, the T.R. was limited to a relative handful of available manuscripts for its day, while Westcott and Hort's work in the C.T. even more so, by focusing primarily on "Siniaticus" and "Vaticanus" as its two main sources.

Personally, I hold that the "Textus Receptus" Greek and the "Ben Chayiim" Hebrew are indeed the preserved texts.

as in any differences between them, the Greek Hebrew texts correct the Kjv?

Of course.
But I'm not aware of any places that the T.R. Greek and Ben Chayiim Hebrew can or have ( when read back into it ) corrected the KJV.

Rather, I hold that the "Authorized" was and is a faithful and accurate carry over into the English ( of its day) of those very same preserved texts.

 

[Dave G]

What bible passage supports idea of a perfect translation?

Psalms 12 guarantees that God's people shall have His words preserved for them by the Lord.
To me, that extends to translations of them into other languages.

This belief has led me to review, for myself, the KJV as well as many English and several other non-English translations...

Because the same Bible that tells me not to put my trust in men ( Psalms 146, Jeremiah 17:5, Isaiah 2, Psalms 118, etc ) but in the Lord alone ( Proverbs 3:5-7 ) has led me to check the accuracy of many translations against especially the Greek, since most efforts at translation today seem concentrated on using the CT ( or the NA / UBS apparatus ) over anything else in the Greek, and seem to be leaving the Hebrew text mostly alone.

Were the 1611 Translators inspired by the Holy Spirit in their translation process?

In my opinion and at this current time, I believe that it's highly doubtful that they were directly inspired of God ( in the way we hold that God's words were directly transmitted to the apostles and prophets ), but I can and do believe that they were indeed influenced by a healthy and genuine respect for His power and might, when they deliberated about each and every passage that they were responsible for translating at that time.

In other words, I hold that the "KJV" is the best English translation currently available, and given these dark times that we are in ( this close to His second coming where apostasy abounds and false teachers and teachings are literally everywhere ), I have little confidence that anything other than corrupt translations using corrupted manuscripts will ever be forthcoming.

To me, the AV is the word of God in my native tongue, and there is none better ( and very likely to be none better ) in the years that I have left to me.

Why not have and use the Apocrypha, as the first Kjv had them along side the scriptures?

Because having read them some years ago, I hold that those books and letters that make up the "Apocrypha" are not, nor have they ever been, part of God's preserved word.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

This is from Great site below. The Apocrypha wasn't removed from KJV Bibles until much later than you had said.

English Bible History

English Bible HistoryThe fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. The History of The English Bible & The History of The Christian Church Meet In The Protestant...

greatsite.com

The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail.

Perhaps it would do you well to go through photoscans of various KJV's. It was a lot of work, but I have gone through many, ranging from 1638 into the 1800's, finding KJV's without the Apocrypha.

Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination

My objection to them is based on the preservation promises of the Bible, as well as contradictions between them and the books canonical.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Since the Originals alone were inspired and inerrant, and there is NO passage anywhere in them that support a perfect translation made off of them, then it follows that all translations are to some degree flawed, and that the 1611while best could be done for its time, was n ot perfect, and its ok to have it updated and revised and corrected

That would require there to be errors in the KJV. However, there aren't any, and no one has actually been able to provide one. Simply all the "errors" are either 1) not errors or 2) are actually superior translations.