Is it not significant because of the content (ie very similar to other texts), or because theology has such inertia that it couldn't be changed?
Suppose it definitely was the first KJB, and said something that strongly contradicted modern theology. Wouldn't modern theocrats just ignore or discredit it?
[possibly worth noting I am as cynical about politics. Suppose Americans found a "true" first version of the Constitution that clearly outlawed private citizens gun ownership* (versus miiltia). Wouldn't most gun advocates simply ignore / explain away that text? Thought experiment also requires the pretense that the differences were due to transcription changes, not actual belief changes]
* instead of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," imagine it read, "Private citizens may own firearms if and only if, and while registered and paid entirely by a state-run militia, may access guns, but cannot use them except in their active attempts to overthrow a tyrannical government."
Suppose it definitely was the first KJB, and said something that strongly contradicted modern theology. Wouldn't modern theocrats just ignore or discredit it?
[possibly worth noting I am as cynical about politics. Suppose Americans found a "true" first version of the Constitution that clearly outlawed private citizens gun ownership* (versus miiltia). Wouldn't most gun advocates simply ignore / explain away that text? Thought experiment also requires the pretense that the differences were due to transcription changes, not actual belief changes]
* instead of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," imagine it read, "Private citizens may own firearms if and only if, and while registered and paid entirely by a state-run militia, may access guns, but cannot use them except in their active attempts to overthrow a tyrannical government."