glorybe429 wrote:

< THE KJV not being "THE WORD OF GOD"

The KJV is the word of God [more accurately a translation of the word of God] in the same sense that the Geneva Bible is or that other good translations of the same original language texts are.

The KJV was actually more of a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles that it was an original new translations since clearly over 50% [some say 80 to 90%] of its text came those pre-1611 English Bibles. The KJV cannot be a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles and not a revision at the same time. If these earlier Bibles were the Word of God, did they cease to be the Word of God after they were revised or updated? Did the first authorized English Bible [the Great Bible] expire or cease to be the Word of God at some point? Did the Geneva Bible cease to be the word of God at a certain date? If these earlier English Bibles were not the Word of God, what does that suggest about the KJV which is a revision of them? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not "holy," "accurate," "correct," "good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," or "true" Bibles according to a consistent application of one-perfect-translation-only reasoning? According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision reproduce qualities that were not present in them?