I’m having fun watching the tail-chasing in an attempt to sling mud on the KJV, myself. On the one hand, a claim that it’s translated from the Latin Vulgate, but on the other it’s supposedly got 20,000 errors compared to the actual Biblical text.
A good question would be, what does the good Catholic author of this claim consider to be the actual Biblical text?
“A good question would be, what does the good Catholic author of this claim consider to be the actual Biblical text?”
Since most people aren’t reading histories of the biblical canon my bet is that imagination is a popular source.
What’s amusing is that the KJV is actually closer to the Catholic bible than modern translations because Erasmus adjusted his Textus Receptus to conform with the Latin Vulgate rather than sticking with the six Greek texts he was working from.
I think I found the source of the ‘20,000 errors’ claim. Erasmus rushed his Textus Receptus to print and it does contain typographical errors. Moreover the Greek manuscripts that he worked from aren’t in complete agreement with what is now called the ‘Majority Text’ which has been compiled from the most common Byzantine New Testaments.
The actual difference between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text amounts to 1,838 readings. This must be after accounting for typos. Evidently the differences are minor because if they were of great importance someone would surely be eager to seize on them rather than just count them.