My advice?
Educate yourself on the various collated Greek texts that are being used ( CT, TR, and MT ), and then which translations use what.
it should help to explain the differences when you read one and it doesn't say things the same way that another might.
Have you educated yourself concerning all the actual textually-varying sources used in the making of the KJV?
Which Greek text would be considered in agreement with the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, one of the sources for the KJV?
Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (
Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (
Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb
manifest, and the prepositional phrase
for you” (
Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims?
The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed the fact that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims. KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (
Making of the KJV NT, p. 263).
KJV-only author Doug Stauffer referred to the Douay-Rheims as “the Jesuit English Roman Catholic Bible” (
One Book Stands Alone, p. 204). Diarmaid MacCulloch noted that the Roman Catholic English translation “was not for ordinary folks to read, but for priests to use as a polemical weapon—the explicit purpose that the 1582 title-page and preface of the Rheims New Testament proclaimed” (
The Reformation, p. 566). In the introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that
“the exiled Jesuit, Gregory Martin, must be recognized as one of the builders of the [1611] version of the Bible” (p. 28). David Norton affirmed that
the words borrowed from the Rheims “make Martin a drafter of the KJB” (
KJB: a Short History, p. 32). Norton added: “Since most of them are transliterations of Jerome’s Latin, they also make Jerome an author of the KJB” (
Ibid.). Norton pointed out that “the Roman Catholic John Hingham (fl. 1639) was to claim that the KJB in fact supported Roman Catholic, not Protestant views” (
History of the English Bible, p. 54). Robert R. Dearden, Jr. observed that “it must be conceded that his [Gregory Martin’s] translations exerted a pronounced influence on the King James Version of 1611, transmitting to it distinctive phrases and style of expression” (
Guiding Light, p. 219).
The sound evidence of the direct influence of the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV is a serious problem for a KJV-only view and its claims. In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (
Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (
Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (
Things That Are Different, p. 104). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (
Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the
Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s
Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek
text of the
Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (
Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Ruckman referred to “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (
Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (
In Defense of the TR, p. 204).
Were the KJV translators wrong to consult and make use of any edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and of the 1582 Rheims New Testament that were not based on the Received Texts as an example or as a source for some renderings?
Should the KJV translators have changed, revised, or corrected the Geneva Bible by borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims?
Would not the fact that the makers of the KJV followed or borrowed renderings from Bibles on the KJV-only view’s corrupt stream/line of Bibles be a problem for KJV-only reasoning?
.
