[Zipster]

Could you then, by chance, answer some questions for me regarding the KJV and it's supposed infallibility?

- Which KJV is inspired? It's a known historical fact that it has been revised four times - the last one being in 1769? Why would something infallible need revised?

-Even if we go with first 1611 version as the only inspired bible - 1611 is quite late within human history. What about everyone before that? What Bible should they have read? Was the bible they read inspired?

- Do you accept the Apocrypha as part of the Cannon? Do you consider it to be inspired? If not, how do you reconcile that the one of the marginal references cites the Book of Maccabees?[Edit: added text] Not to mention, the Apocrypha was part of the original KJV. [edit: end of added text]

- Why are there marginal notes in the KJV offering other translation possibilities? This seems unnecessary if the KJV is completely without error - one would think that, if this is the case, no other possible translation is necessary to be given.

-Why were all the marginal notes and additional readings removed from the KJV Bible, along with the Apocrypha, the opening dedication to James I, and a introduction titled, "The Translators to the Readers?" If the KJV is inspired, then weren't all these things that were in the original KJV also inspired? And, isn't this like taking things away from the Word of God?

- What about the italics found in KJV? Standard Biblical Translation practice uses italics for words that do not exist in the original manuscripts. If you believe fully in the KJV inerrant word-for-word translation, then why are these italics necessary and present?

- When there is a difference between the TR Greek and the KJV English, which one is supposed to be accepted? Is it not ridiculous to say the source of a translation has error, but the translation itself is innerant? Isn't it a bit illogical to assume that the more modern Bible language is more accurate than the language the New Testament was written in?

I have other questions, and arguments against the King James Bible as the only translation a Christian should use - but, I think we can start there. I'm not saying the KJV is evil or anything - it's a beautiful translation, but there are demonstrable errors within its history and its text; and if there are demonstrable errors within it, then it is logical to say that it is not inerrant.