Replies

The New KJV provides the footnotes you seem to enjoy. The original KJV reprinted would not refer to works published later. That would require occult knowledge I believe.

Take a look at the title page of the KJV. "Translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised." [italics mine] When that is done today for a work intended to be accurate (like the NIV) rather than a piece for casual reading (e.g. Living Bible), lots of footnotes result. The most ancient manuscripts were not available in the days of the translation of the "Authorized Version" (which is what it really should be called -- it was authorized for the Church of England). So of course it couldn't have the same footnotes we have today, even if the translation committee had been asked to furnish them. But it does appear to have been done with a somewhat authoritarian, rather than authoritative, bent.

That's what happens when you read NIV promotional materials. The KJV is really an edition of the Tyndale translation. The Byzantine family of manuscripts is ancient, but older is not necessarily better. No one really knows the origins of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Perhaps you think they are very old. Maybe they are. But are they reliable? Modernists make fun of the Majority Text because there are so many examples. And why did the Church preserve those examples? Perhaps because they represented the best readings.

I do not worship the KJV. I have used many translations. I have read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. I have studied the manuscript issues. I just want people to know that there is an excellent case for preferring the KJV family of translations.