Jordan provided this link in another thread. Since many folks will go to the link now (and in the future) I think a response to some the things asserted there is in order. I've read the article and listened to Will Kinney speak his argument on YouTube. Since Mr. Kinney has been expelled from the Baptist Board he will be unable to directly respond here. Since Jordan posted the link, maybe he or others will try to defend it. Since Mr. Kinney's article is rather lengthy I will be dealing with it sections starting at the beginning. I provide the first entire section I will be discussing below; nothing is excluded in order to preserve the context of his comments. I will not necessarily be commenting on each and every assertion with which I agree or disagree, only selections of my choosing. I will not be attacking the KJV or attacking Mr. Kinney personally. I will only be discussing Mr. Kinney's argumentation. His article is entitled Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? -- The first issue I take up results from his statement: Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. Note that this statement is completely unnecessary to the building of a logical argument to answer the question asked. This assertion seems to be contradicted by a later statement he makes: ...almost any Baptist or other Christian site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant; I will concur with Mr. Kinney that this a common belief statement among evangelicals. Thus, it seems to me that a great many of his so-called King James Bible critics must be participants of those Baptist or other Christian organizations. It is also Mr. Kinney's assertion that these Christians do indeed believe in an inspired and infallible Bible when he admits that they confess belief in a perfect and inerrant ancient languages Bible, even if that is the ONLY one they believe in. I don't read in the article that Mr. Kinney is suggesting that there are any intended substantial differences between the descriptions of perfect and infallible and inspired and inerrant. What we do read in his article is the implication that original autographs are not to be considered "the Bible" by his statement: It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible... If Mr. Kinney means that all the original manuscripts were never bound together in one volume, he is correct. That Moses' autograph of the book of Exodus and Paul's autograph of the book of Romans never met in one place should be painfully obvious if only by the sheer expanse of time that passed between them. But what Mr. Kinney implies here by mentioning this fact is that the 66 books of the Protestant canon is the only characteristic that defines the word "Bible". He implies anything less (or greater) than that particular canon in one volume should not be spoken of as a "Bible". Really, I suspect that dragging the topic of Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? all the way back to a canon issue is a tactic of misdirection. I think it is even possible that the original questioner may have assumed an established Protestant canon (maybe even speaking specifically about the Bible in English) because before the King James Bible only requires a short period before ~1600 AD. Of course, the word "Bible" comes from a Greek word merely meaning "books". This Greek term biblia was being applied toward the Christian scriptures as early as the 2nd Century AD (that is well before something identical to the Protestant canon alone was ever bound into one volume). Christians at this time may not have had access to all of the canonical books written to that point, yet would consider what they did have as their "Bible". Additionally, sometimes modern Jews refer to the Hebrew Tanakh as the Jewish "Bible". I'm sure throughout the ages that many early believers that had owned a few scrolls or small codex of holy scripture felt that they had a "Bible". Even the 1611 edition of the King James Bible would contain some apocryphal books. Eastern Orthodox Christians still retain additional books in their biblical canon. And if I were castaway on an island with only the undamaged KJV books of Genesis, Psalms, Luke, and Galatians I would simply tell the natives that it was "the Bible". Mr. Kinney does get to redefine how "Bible" can or cannot be used. I affirm my trust in the 66 book canon. But, can the Protestant canon alone be the distinctive attribute of a true holy "Bible"? No, and for example it is easily seen in the heretical Jehovah Witness New World Translation that proper canon alone can not establish the veracity of a so-called "Bible". I don't like the fact that the NWT is often identified as a "Bible" but nether do I get to prescribe how "Bible" can or cannot be applied. Remember, Mr. Kinney previously said that KJV-critics did not EVER believe in an inspired and perfect Bible in ANY language. Mr. Kinney may not have it both ways. It seems that he knew that many Christians profess belief that at least at one point in history there was an inspired and infallible unbound Bible, (a fact he would later use in his argument) but he chose to publish the false accusation that they ... do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language. Was this an intentional slur or just an error? Were the contradicting statements a sloppy oversight or simply a case of dishonest argumentation hoping that no one would catch on?