Then what was wrong with the Geneva Bible, or the Bishops, based on that text? And what was wrong with the 1611 KJV? And other versions of the KJV…?

Why so many translations? Why over two centuries’ worth of revising and correcting and perfecting? Simple:

1. Bible and Language Scholars have arisen who add more information because of manuscript research and discovery.
2. The language continues to evolve. The KJV was simply not written in the same English as Wycliffe spoke!

But KJVO advocates would have us believe that all scholarship was to be cut off from the year 1611. Or is it 1769? Or any number of KJV editions, with and without the apocrypha?

We are not to question the scholarship of these 17^th (or 18^th) century researchers and writers? They are to have the last word, and anyone who dares come against them is anathema, and their works will be discarded and even burned in public?

Foolishness! And an anathema to such teaching!

As early as 1885 Charles Spurgeon was praising the work of the creators of the Revised Version, based not on the Textus Receptus at all, but on the Westcott-Hort Greek New testament!

Spurgeon: "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to pro- duce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. … [W]e have nothing but the Bible; and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand."