King James Bible Inspired or Preserved?
How do we know that the 1611 King James Bible is the divinely inspired one, and not an earlier English translation?
I do not teach a divinely inspired translation per se. I believe that the inspired words of God were perfectly preserved in the translation that we know as the King James Bible of 1611. The difference is that I do not teach a new inspiration for the translation. Rather, I believe that God preserved the inspiration of scripture as He transferred it from one language to another. Specifically, I believe that the King James Bible of 1611 is God's perfectly preserved Bible for the English-speaking people of today.
The evidence that God preserved His words in the King James Bible would take and has taken books to explain. Briefly, it is the one He blessed more than any since the founding of Christianity. The Bible says that we know a tree by its fruit (Luke 6:44For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
See All...). The King James Bible has been present for more revivals, more souls being saved, more missionary work, more Bible colleges, and much more, than any other copy of the Bible ever was--including the original Hebrew and Greek. God obviously did something special with it.
And, since God promised to preserve His words (Psalm 12:6-7 [6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
See All...), I do not need to question whether or not He did it. That would be to question the veracity of God. My responsibility is to find where He did it. I conclude that He did it with the King James Bible. Note: I also have a sermon series on the issue called the Twenty-Four Proofs of Preservation. Unfortunately, I do not have this written out anywhere. But there are many proofs--not just one or two.
As to earlier English versions, the King James Bible was built on them. They were good, but I could not call them perfectly preserved. They provided the foundation on which the King James Bible was built. The differences between the earlier versions and the King James are not of the same sort as the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The new ones attack the text and the mode of translation. This was not true with the old ones.