Quick review on “Is the KJB the only inspired Scripture on Earth today?” debate.

In late 2015, a written debate took place asking the question, “Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today?”

There are some who are so committed to an erroneous, non-faith view of Bible transmission, that they will stoop to any low (I have seen this consistently) in their attack on the King James Bible.

The very debate question itself is a falsehood. Those who uphold the King James Bible do not uphold it as the “only inspired Scripture on Earth today”.

This is because the Scripture was given by an inspiration process ONCE with the original writings. And second, all faithful transmission of Scripture is providing and preserving those inspired words. That means that someone who had a some Swahili translation back in the early 1800s must have had the inspired words of God, because the Scripture words are inspired, despite having passed from one language to another.

On this first basis some attack and wish to malign those who uphold the King James Bible, because several ignorant or misguided individuals have claimed a special inspiration for the King James Bible, as though it was made by inspiration from 1605-1611. That is, of course, nonsense.

So while the proponent of the King James Bible in the debate (Will Kinney) presented the case with Scriptures, those against spent all their time trying to make the KJB appear merely the product of men. They spared nothing to imply that the KJB must be wrong because of printing errors. Except, they argue, these weren’t printing errors, but deliberate choices by the translators that were wrong.

The entire flimsy argumentation that they employed against the King James Bible basically tries to make out that the drafts of the KJB show that the KJB translators’ work is not the work we have today. This is an entire fabrication. One alleged draft document was known in the time of Westcott, a leading agent against the King James Bible in 1881, yet Westcott described this alleged draft as in fact a comparison work between old versions. We read from first hand examiners (e.g. Ward Allen) that there are many annotations in that copy which were never printed in the KJB at any time.

Really what happens is those against the KJB turn to every source that takes an unbelieving, naturalistic interpretation: they will heed David Norton when he alleges changes to the KJB, such as the totally obvious typographical error at Hosea¬†6:5 “Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets” which in 1611 was accidentally printed “shewed”. Apparently (like some sort of elaborate conspiracy), it was really supposed to be “shewed”.

This is the level of those who dishonestly and unashamedly attack the grand old King James Bible. They wish us to be some sort of hill-billies while they, with their “science falsely so called”, wish to tear and abuse the KJB at any cost.