Is the ESV the KJV OF OUR DAY? - Four parallels between these two Bible translations 

There is better Soteriology...

Move over and make room for another peasant!

The NKJV is a translation that offers all the bells and whistles, even a peasant can memorize with ease.

P.Y.- The NJKV is truly a beautiful translation and has been a blessing to millions! Enjoy. 🤗

NKJV was the KJV a generation ago. The NASB has been the best transation for the past 50 years. The LSB will take it's place.

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

Ha! There you go!

You should get a Douay-Rheims one

it changes entire verses to fit catholic doctrine, plus its a translate of the vulgate which is a very good translation of a horribly corrupted text @@christsavesreadromans1096

how is that ironic?

Ah, you've gone back to the ESV, Mike. Have you done your stint with the KJV? Which ESV's do you have?

Terrible downgrade. Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

@@dantombs5697 Are you KJVO?

@@mikehoward455 I see the trick here you get me to answer your question before you answer my question. Christianity is offensive religion, we all believe in one God and there’s so many gods out there. All the rest are wrong? Of course they are. There’s so many religions out there all the rest wrong absolutely all the restaurant the believe in the triune God is the only true religion , so in essence, we believe there’s only one religion that’s true, we believe that there’s only one true faith, there’s one true baptism, and there’s one true holy Bible. It’s accurate and without error, so did the ESB get the right person killing Goliath?

@@dantombs5697 You’re in a cult sir. I’m always amused at how mad KJVOers get when they find someone reading a different translation.

I agree. I've never tried a CSB, I've added the Legacy Standard Bible in the last 6 months. I really like it. I read all of them frequently also.

KJV is so flowly!!!

@@GodisGracious1031Ministries PARTS of it are for sure. Other parts, and there are a lot of them, are very much not "flowy".

@@Nick-wn1xw They are all flowy.

@@Nick-wn1xw Well, I heard the other versions were corrupted. So I stick with KJV.

the NKJV is not the KJV

@@GodisGracious1031Ministries that's a good thing. The NKJV is better.

No it is not.. it alsochanges doctrine@@eternallogic6394

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

Exactly. This whole 'Onlyism' stuff is annoying and very divisive and some of its adhearants can be unhinged in their loyalty. I've had people tell me that if I don't use the KJV that I'm damned to Hell. What a fallen mess we are. Want some fun? Have you ever read the Geneva Bible? LOL I like a number of translations. Sometimes different wording can make something clearer.

I’m a NASB77 onlyist 😉

@@H1N1777 Some people's kids! ROTFL

The difference is that ESV-Onlyism isn't nearly as harmful. The ESV is in the same early-to-mid 20th century English as the RSV before it (which came out right after World War II). It is a bit archaic compared to its sister translation, the NRSV, but it's not in danger of being easily misunderstood due to 400 years of changes in word meaning. Plus, it's nowhere near as intense in its exclusivity. Even the most loyal of ESV users will still admit that the NASB is a perfectly good second choice, especially the 1995 edition. Granted, that might be as far as they budge: they might dismiss the NKJV for its textual basis and the NRSV for its theological leanings, despite these translations all being close relatives. And they might feel that even the CSB is pushing it in terms of non-literalness, let alone the NET and NIV. Finally, it's not as doctrinally dangerous. No one thinks that the ESV "corrects the Greek." No one insists on translating Bibles into other languages directly from the ESV. No one spouts a doctrine of double inspiration.

@@MAMoreno I agree, I was thinking in merely traditional terms, the ESV is the traditional text for this generation as KJV was for previous, which is funny because I can remember these ESV only peeps complain about traditions of the older Church goers, “stuck in their ways,” “not missional,” and now we have tradition. Funny how those things happen.

A consensus of opinion with whom? It is not my opinion.

🤣

@@guymontag349 that's why it's called a consensus, not an absolute majority.

@@kylec8950 glad I made you laugh!

The KJV is far superior I mean it's in a different league .....Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

Wait just wait! take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

Well, if half the room is using the NRSV, and the other half of the room is using the ESV, then the whole room is reading the exact same words over half the time. As long as everyone's on the same "RSV update" page, it's a start.

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

It really comes down to whether you consider the ASV to be a revision of the RV or just a second edition. The American Standard Version's official name is the Revised Version, Standard American Edition (but try fitting that on a Bible spine).

Wow that all sounds too bad.Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

NKJV for the win!! 🏆

So which one do you read? You never mentioned that.

@@Nick-wn1xw At this point, I have 19 English translations of the Bible (not counting duplicates/editions). I plan on getting a print edition of the Geneva, and I want a deluxe LSB soon. Every one of them are special to me as they are God's Word. That said, I am still in the process of immersing myself in the NKJV. Once I have read every word of scripture text, the commentary by John MacArthur, and highlighted it completely, then I will move on to the next translation. I am at a loss to decide on the next one to delve into, as there are so many to choose from. For now. it's the NKJV. BTW, which one is your favorite?

Or dared to use the word “ begotten “

@@PrentissYeates do you ever notice that if you remove the word begotten exodus 4:22 makes the Bible contradict itself in John 3:16

​@@PrentissYeatesit's not a deal breaker to me but I would prefer it. I'd prefer italics, red letter and capital deity pronouns more.

​@@dantombs5697until the son of man came from the line of Israel and it's prophets and champions, "Israel" did carry the multigenerational paradigm of God's plan. Jesus took it, and remember that many times Israel, Jacob and Zion are used interchangeably (though they generally shouldn't be) for rhetorical purposes regarding lineage.

@@nobodyspecial1852 interesting View where do you go with this? This is just a curious tone.

What is the issue you have with the verse in the esv? I've compared with the kjv, and the only difference I can find, besides the ordering of words, is the difference between "it" and "him, in reference to "the beast"

​@@TheChadPad same here, I don't see any difference. It's not like the difference between it and him has any consequences, because either way it's bad news

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

I love the LSB.

is that calvisist John McArthur's Bible?

@@GodisGracious1031Ministries Calvinism is so so evil

I agree..@@dantombs5697

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

Thanks!

@@AFrischPerspective you’re welcome!

What are you talking about!Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

You need to get a KJV.Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

​@@dantombs5697 Excellent catch, brother! Thank you for sharing this with us. I'll be sticking with the NKJV & KJV from now on.

True the ESV may be the Bible for blind but Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

​@@dantombs5697so basically the King James Bible is correct and every other translation is wrong? Friend disagreement about how to translate Greek words isn't demonic. The King James Bible is no more the standard for the English translation of God's word then the Latin was the standard for God's word. And I'm pretty sure no matter which translation we talked about you would come down on the side of the King James version.

@@itsstillcalledtoday9928 hey let’s deal with the issue at hand did the ESV get the right person killing Goliath? It’s kind of a yes or no question and that’s OK. If it gets it wrong we’ll just work through all the other ones so that you can see the logic behind us.

Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

If you look into it, you will find that the KJV has borrowed much from the Geneva (and others) that preceded it.

Yes.

@@cfrost87 THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWER! I'VE HAD A STROKE SO THE KJV HAS COME A LITTLE CHALLENGE FOR ME!

@@brendagarnder9758 If you want a bible that is still fairly formal, but easy to read, the CSB is right down the middle between formal and dynamic. But the ESV is still a good choice, as it's still formal, but readable. The ESV doesn't have what Mard Ward calls dead words and false friends like the KJV does.

God bless you as you heal and recover Sister! 🙏🏼

for me, kjv is best!! Its so flowing, I am not sure, its just is... the language, is poetry.

The ESV is brown fecal matter.Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

ru-vid.com/group/PLNGhZnJavRf01ILv3TJu_ke4IPYcKcpJm

The KJV translators were given the commission of updating the Bishops Bible, I believe.

Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

I was gifted a NIV bible in 1994 and really like it. My wife just bought a new bible and went with NIV because it’s what I have. When we read together we realized that they’re different… changes that cross a line in my opinion. Anyway we’re going to try ESV. Im disappointed to hear that they change it frequently

True there will be a great falling away,,,, Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

Dude what are you talking about? The question was “is the ESV the KJV of our day?” Not your opinion on Bible versions? Also, even the KJV translators saw the value in updating text… sooo good luck with that

@@jaredb6323 so I believe in inspiration of the word of God, that it is alive and living. It hasn’t died. Some people believe that the inspired work of God is the autographs. So scriptures are not living anymore. Inspiration means God breathed, God breathed on man and became a living soul, God breathed on the dead bones in Ezekiel, and became alive. There’s evidence in the new testament that the scriptures are alive maybe not the sense that we consider it. But they are powerful and if they’re with error, then it certainly isn’t the word of God . What do you think about the ESV getting the wrong person killing Goliath?

Bud, I rarely read the ESV so you’re asking the wrong dude. I read the KJV, NKJV, and CSB. I use the CSB because in the footnotes, it always notes the differences in manuscripts, referencing TR and the other line. But my comment and this video were about neither of those issues. I also believe that the word is LIVING.

@@jaredb6323 right right good on you for using the KJV, yeah the CSB has the wrong person killing Goliath. yeah and sorry to imply that you were digging into these modern translations. But most of those modern translations are either missing really important scripture or change significantly enough to affect the outcome of the verse. I can give you samples, but you know if you’re in the KJV You’re doing way better off than most

Just take a look at second Samuel 21:19 they got the wrong person killing Goliath. Now if you go to the New Testament you're gonna read John 3:16. They've taken the word begotten out which is so terribly important in the early creeds. Just take a look at exodus 4:22 and you'll find out how it contradicts John 3:16.... Then read Matthew 18:11… Catch this first Timothy 3:16 they mistake in the word Theos Greek word for God to for Heos, Greek word for he... Wow can you see the demonic influence right there. That says it all!!!

I’ll check that out. What do you read? KJV only?

@@aumtheaum3827 I believe that scriptures are God breathed, they’re alive, just like God breathed on the dust of the ground and man became a living soul. Like Ezekiel saw the dead bones and God breathed on him, and they became alive. So I believe that there is a Bible without error. do you or do you think it was only the autographs that were inspired and the scripture is dead now?

Not meaning to hurt your feelings but I must be insulting and say, I didn't think Roman Catholics were much interested in what the Bible actually says. For example, do you think Mary is a perpetual virgin and that she is immaculate?

@@rubiks6 Believing in tradition in addition to the Bible isn't showing disinterest in the Bible. The New Testament never says that Mary was NOT an immaculate perpetual virgin, so you have an argument from silence at best. (And yes, Jesus had brothers according to the NT, but the fourth Gospel suggests that John was given charge over Mary after the crucifixion. Surely James would've been in charge of taking care of Mary if she were his biological mother, right?) Granted, I do think that these Mariological traditions are unreliable secondary developments, but I also don't think that they're a good measurement of one's view of the Bible.

@@MAMoreno - Believing in tradition _instead of_ (when it conflicts with) the Bible was specifically condemned by Jesus. (Mark 7.1 - 12 is just one example. Pay special attention to verses 7 and 8.) _"The New Testament never says that Mary was NOT an immaculate perpetual virgin ..."._ False. "He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the *_son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?_* And are not *_his sisters_* here with us?” And they took offense at him." Mark 6.1 - 3 (ESV) Jesus had 4 brothers, two of whom became New Testament authors. Jesus had sisters. Mary, the mother of Jesus was certainly not a perpetual virgin. You ignore the Scriptures and follow Roman Catholic (false) traditions. In Luke 1 Mary sings a song which begins, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior ..." Why did Mary call God her "Savior"? Because she knew she needed a savior because she knew she was a sinner like all persons. Mary was not immaculate. She was a sinner like the rest of us. Again you reject the Scriptures and cling to the man-made traditions of the Roman Catholic church. Commandment 1 - "You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20.2) Yet, the Roman Catholic church violates this command by elevating Mary as the Queen of Heaven and teaching their followers to pray to her, teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, who died on the cross for your sins is inaccessible. Did Mary die on a cross for anyone or in any way suffer for us? Commandment 2 - "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." - (Exodus 20.4 - 6) The Roman catechism actually removes this commandment from the list because the Roman church violates this thousands upon thousands of times with images of saints and angels, even demons, Mary, images of Jesus that couldn't possibly be Jesus, etc. When a Pope kisses a statue of Mary, he is most certainly violating this commandment but I repeat - the Roman church has removed this commandment, rejecting the Word of God to honor their own invented traditions. ----------------------------------------------------------- Now I've told you the truth and shown you the Scriptures. You are at a crossroads. You have to make a choice. You can believe God and His Word and change your mind about the Roman Catholic church or you can reject God's Word and thereby reject the God of the Bible and worship the false god(s) of Roman Catholicism and lie to yourself and convince yourself that you are not the recipient of a massive deception. Choose this day whom you will serve - the God of the Bible or the god(s) of the Roman Catholic church.

@@rubiks6 why would you take the time to be divisve? How is that edifying the Body of Christ? What did pointing out a Catholic belief that you disagree with have to do with choice of Bible translation? The person was expressing joy about obtaining an ESV-CE, and your greatest impulse was to indicate: "You still can't prove to me that you're in the club! PASS MY LITMUS TEST!" Immaturity on your part. WWJD!! 🤔

@@brendaboykin3281 - WWJD? He would speak out against false teachings that lead people to Hell. Read the gospels. Learn about the real Jesus. Learn how he spoke to the Pharisees. You haven't a clue what Jesus would do. Pick up your Bible and read it. Learn about the Man/God you claim to follow. False teachings lead people to eternal Hell. It's just that simple.

we are his servants, not slaves.

Jesus Christ is God incarnate who came to earth to be born and live a perfect life, a sinless life. (He is one person of the Trinity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; one God in three persons not three Gods.) Jesus then gave Himself up to be crucified and died to pay for the sins of the whole world. My sin, your sin, the sins of everybody. 3 days later He was resurrected. He now offers salvation to all who will turn from their sin and trust Him to save them from eternity in hell. He paid our debts because we couldn't, but we have to trust Him to do it. I cannot add anything to what He has done (not even baptism). I cannot do enough good to take even a year off of my death sentence in hell. The sentence is a never ending one, because I have sinned against an eternal God. But Jesus took my punishment, He saved me, and offers that same salvation to you. I am praying for you.

Because they love and respect the Bible

@@AFrischPerspective So do Catholics and Orthodox.

Unfortunately, a few people in every denomination think their's is the "true church".

It's 75% Tyndale or more.

It very much is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, as can be easily demonstrated by its strong similarities to that previous translation (and to the Geneva Bible, for that matter).

The cover of David Norton's "A Textual History of the King James Bible" shows a page from the Bishops' Bible marked up with notes from the translators.

Which one? Please tell us. I've never heard that.

@@mikerichards8400 Calvinism. It is slanted toward the Reformed/TULIP view which teaches predestination. Its General Editor was James I. Packer, the leading Calvinist of his day. Others who worked on the translation were also Calvinists.

@@davemitchell116 please give more details about the Calvinism found in it. Which passages are translated in a Calvinist manner? We need to know.

@@mikerichards8400 There are scores of podcasts, Internet articles and RU-vid videos on this subject. You'll appreciate it more if you do your own research like I did.

@@davemitchell116 I understand, but I would like you to give me three or four passages the ESV has changed or perverted to endorse Calvinism. Such examples from you would help us so much. Actual proof of the ESV's Calvinism. Please.

Here's Acts 8.37 in the ESV: "And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he replied, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'” Yes, it's in the footnote, but it's there. Speaking of footnotes, those of the NKJV and NET do a sufficient job of explaining why this verse doesn't appear in the main text of most modern Bibles: it isn't commonly found in the Greek manuscripts.

@@MAMoreno which Greek manuscripts? The received text or the Alexandria text?

@@Lance.West4 The Received Text was created by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, so it obviously wasn't that Reformation-era work. If you mean the Byzantine text type that is (imperfectly) reflected in the Textus Receptus, then at least there's some argument to be made for its antiquity.

@@MAMoreno Just because a text is older doesn't make it correct. I'm not a Bible scholar thank God because most aren't Christians. But I know enough to not be fooled. I believe God is strong enough to keep his word for us (John 1-1) and when in doubt, I will go for the one that's not taking out very important verses about the virgin birth, salvation, when we get baptized etc, etc. Ask God to open your eyes on which Bible is correct. They all can't be correct! Ask yourself why they take out acts 8-37. Read verse 37 and think why they want to put doubt in your mind. I mean if verse 37 is wrong what is verse 36 asking?? Why is verse 36 still there?? For it to make sense 36 needs to be gone also. Think about it seriously.... What are the first words out of Satan's mouth? He put doubt in Eve and it worked like a charm. He does the same thing with these new Bible translations. Call me old fashioned, idiot, hillbilly, idc. When it comes to God, I believe you're better off being in the book that holds Jesus in the highest literal divinity possible than a watered down feel good version. JESUS IS LORD AND THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN.

@@Lance.West4 John 1.1 isn't about the Bible, and to equate the Bible with the Word that became flesh--Jesus Christ--is arguably heretical (especially when you try to figure out how that makes any sense from a Trinitarian perspective), so you might want to use a different verse to support your argument. Acts 8.36 is a rhetorical question. Obviously, that rhetorical question bugged somebody at some point, which explains how verse 37 emerged in the Western textual tradition. And just because a translation "holds Jesus in the highest literal divinity possible," that doesn't make it a good translation. I could make a paraphrase that would make The Message look like Young's Literal Translation by comparison, and I could fill every chapter with an extra line about the divinity of Christ, but it wouldn't be a faithful representation of the Bible. That's why a more pious reading in a certain passage can't be automatically assumed as the original reading.

Correct. It is the Critical Text as its basis. The KJB and earlier translations use the TR. I've got a NT Tyndale translations on order. Waiting for it like crazy!

Another similarity between the KJV and the ESV is that the translators used up--to-date scholarship. If the ESV relied on the Textus Receptus, that would be like the KJV relying on the Vulgate for its New Testament text.

@@MAMoreno It's been noted that where parts of the Greek used for the NT of the KJV were missing, the translators had to resort to the Vulgate! (I love this.) Ironically when Archbishop Challoner revised the original (1582/1609) Douay-Rheims between 1749 and 1752, he borrowed extensively from the KJV.

I'm afraid so! 🤓😆