[bibleprotector]

However, the KJV was NEVER authorized to be read in the church.

Its authorisation is in several forms:
a. that it was designed to supersede the authorised Bibles, particularly the Bishops’, the Great and Coverdale’s;
b. that it was sanctioned and produced by Royal Authority;
c. that it was made and promoted by bishops; and
d. that it was supposed to be ratified and authorised by the King, Privy Council and house of Lords. The lack of documentation of this actually occurring can be explained because the records from 1611 were destroyed in the Fire of Whitehall.

For the sake of being accurate

The dates of versions being given vary depending on which edition is being referred to. Dating may be of the first printing, or of the creation of the whole (where the OT is after the NT), or of the year of the definitive edition of it (not usual practice).

Having said that, I start a count of seven versions from Tyndale 1525, and count the Matthew Bible in 1537, though it in part is Tyndale’s 1534 revised edition as edited by John Rogers.

It must be remembered that one of the demands by the king was that they were to use the Bishops' Bible and only change it where the original language text demanded it.

“These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s [Great], Geneva.”

the KJV was completed for the Church of England and was to support their doctrines and their doctrines only.

This is untrue. The Scripture was translated honestly, and the translators were independent. There is some variation in the doctrine of the translators. The point is that truth is self-evident. The Bible was not “interpreted” through Anglican glasses in translation.

the popular Geneva Bible which supported doctrines not accepted by the Church of England

Plenty of Anglicans, including leaders, were using the Geneva. The Geneva was being printed for several years after 1611 by the King’s Printers. The issue was the side notes and small errors which existed in the Geneva.

To argue that the KJB was made by almost a conspiracy to “counter” the Geneva Version is unreasonable. Especially since the Geneva was used as a basis for the KJB, and was still used by Anglican leaders after 1611.

Most people are not aware of that fact. Most people use the KJV because that is the Bible their pastor uses.

To then ascribe an anti-intellectualism to today’s Christian because they grew up in a KJB tradition is an empty argument.

In fact, it took the KJV up till 1640s to finally be accepted over the Geneva Bible.

Actually, the KJB had really taken over long before then. It was not until the 1650s until the Geneva Version was fully superseded in the minds of a minority of Puritans.

The King made it illegal to printed any Bible other than the KJV.

Please provide the evidence for this. I know the Archbishop put forth prohibitations. I can provide quotes which show that it was the Puritan Parliament which outlawed the printing of Bibles except by authorised printers, and then it was the Puritans who continued the monopoly of KJB printing in the 1650s.

Since I am not of the Church of England, thus believing as they do, I find it difficult to use the KJV as a study Bible.

Not only a false belief of the KJB being an “Anglican Version” rather than a Protestant one, but also making truth relative. That is like saying, “I will only read a Bible made by my denomination ... because they have altered the Scripture to suit our doctrines.” Truth is objective.