Many modern translation advocates, such as James R. White, claim that no translation of the Bible can be inspired, infallible and inerrant. They also claim that not one single copy of any original Biblical manuscript is without an addition, a deletion, a change or some other copyist error. Modern Bible advocates limit inspiration to the Bibles original languages and many further limit inspiration to the original autographs. But, consider what Paul said in II Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Since Timothy lived a good 2,000 years after the first Biblical autograph was prepared, he could not have had access to it. The same likely goes for all Old Testament autographs and he probably did not have access to every NT autograph either because they were not all written by or addressed to him. Timothy had to use copies of most of the Bibles original autographs. Since Timothy had a Jewish mother and a Greek father, he certainly spoke Greek, and since he was born in a Hellenic city and traveled with Paul through the Hellenized world, it is possible that he did not use Hebrew as his daily language (if he used it at all). This means that Timothy likely used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. We can reasonably conclude that when Paul told Timothy that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, he was speaking of the Scripture that Timothy had access to and used. This means that Paul declared that it is imperative that copies of Scripture and translations of Scripture be given by inspiration of God. This is not saying that all copies and all translations of the original Biblical documents are inspired (because they are not all identical). Neither does it guarantee that what someone accepts as Scripture is inspired (the Koran for example). But, it does say that you must be willing to concede that whatever you accept as Scripture can be and must be inspired. So why can the Authorized King James translation of the Bible be just as inspired, inerrant and infallible as the Bibles original autographs in the Bibles original languages?