Adam Nicolson is an English Historian, he is certainly NOT a KJV only proponent and your suggestion that he is comes very close to libel. When you suggest that a professional scholar is biased you’d better be able to back it up.
I don’t know where you’re getting your information but you’re just wrong. The KJV was the collaborative effort of 47 men working with the best texts available at the time and with existing translations “diligently compared” including, it is generally assumed the Douai Rheims bible.
No one is suggesting that the translators had all the texts we have today to work from but they certainly had the complete Masoretic for the Old testament and the textus Receptus for the New.
Here is a Wiki on the subject. Scroll down to 3.1 where you can read:
Compared to modern translations, there are some differences which are based in part on more recently discovered manuscripts, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Some Protestant groups believe that the newer versions of the Bible are based on corrupt manuscripts and that the King James Version is truer to the original languages. This preference is partially due to the fact that many modern versions often excise or marginalize certain verses deemed by modern scholarship as later additions to the original text and thus are seen by traditionalists as tampering with the text.
See also the very words of the original title page:
“THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.”
Tell me, is this just a case of “If it’s Prottie it must be shoddy”?, you know what I mean…if it originated with Protestants it must be weak, less than, etc.?
I think it is…you’re denying the bulk of scholarship on the matter just in order to try scoring cheap polemical points.
Here’s a clue:
It doesn’t take anything away from your church’s truth claims to admit that the AV1611 was translated from the original languages in the best manuscripts they had at the time and that for what it is it is, really an excellent translation.
Indeed, it was originally published with the OT Deuteros as well as a schedule for psalter reading and an appendice for liturgical use according to the Gregorian calendar.