The English translation itself is a horror equal to the corrupt Alexandrian texts

There are two different kinds of problems with the Bibles that have come down from Westcott and Hort's revisionist mistreatment of 1881. The best-known problem is that they substituted corrupted Greek documents, known as the Alexandrians, for the Greek documents that the King James version was based on, known as the Textus Receptus.

However, the English "translation" they also produced at the same time was just as evil as the evil Greek manuscripts, and unfortunately the pattern of that translation laid the groundwork for future changes in the Bibles since then.

I could call myself Textus Receptus Only but it may be clearer just to call myself anti-Westcott and Hort, or as I say at the top of the blog, a Burgonian. Dean J W Burgon's The Revision Revised was originally published as three separate articles documenting the errors of the Westcott and Hort revision: 1) The errors in the corrupted Greek texts which were imposed by them on the revision although the agreement assumed they'd base the revision on the Textus Receptus, 2) their horrifically bad translation into English which also violated their original agreement, making some 36,000 mostly unnecessary changes in the English, and 3) the ridiculous "theory" by which they justified their vandalism of the King James translation.

Not only the Greek texts they used were bad, but the translation itself was bad, and a violation of their agreement as well. Their objective seems to have been to destroy the Bible by one means or another.

The King James needed some changes to bring it up to date, but it did not need even a 50th of the changes made by the revising committee, as testified by Bishop Wordsworth whose comment on this I've linked in the margin and quoted elsewhere in this blog, and others. The ENGLISH word substitutions are just as destructive to the text, even where -- or really, especially where-- they don't really alter the meaning but simply make it impossible for Christians holding different translations to read along. None of this was corrected. Changes were made in their translation, but most of their own changes were retained, and what they established was itself the habit of making changes in the text, so that the problem has only increased down the decades since then.