If you are not a KJV believer, (maybe even somewhat against it), try answering these questions.
1.) What is your final authority for all matters of faith and practice? (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
2.) Why are you against the KJV?
3.) When did you first learn that the KJV was not perfect?
4.) Had you rather KJV Onlies be NASB Only or ESV Only?
5.) What is wrong with the "One Book, One Authority" philosophy?
6.) Can you prove a contradiction or problem within the KJV itself?
7.) Do we have access to any exact words of scripture that are alive? (1 Pet. 1:23)
8.) Did the original words of God endure, live, and abide forever? (1 Pet. 1:23-25, Heb. 4:12, Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33) Or were the original words lost?
9.) How come a translation can not be inspired? (Genesis 42:18-20, 42:23, Ezra 4:7-11, Ps. 110:1 with Luke 20:42-43, Mark 5:54, Acts 22, Acts 26:14, and Matthew 27:46 with Mark 15:34. )
10.) If manuscripts Aleph and B are good enough to get rid of Mark 16:9-20 from our Bibles, how come they are not good enough to add in Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, and Wisdom to our Bibles....since both manuscripts contain those books as part of the Old Testament scriptures????
11.) How come ALL modern translations (accept NKJV) translate "orthotomeo" as "correctly handle" or "rightly handle" instead of "rightly DIVIDE"???
12.) How come the NIV translates Hebros as "Aramaic" instead of "Hebrew" when referring to the language? Isn't that a Catholic teaching?--that the apostles and Christ spoke Aramaic?
13.) How come you complain about the KJV using occasional dynamic equivalents when it uses LESS than any modern translation?
14.) Why do you complain about the KJV not being consistent in translation when NO TRANSLATION is consistent in translation? (word rendering)
15.) How come you never bring ONE book, manuscript, translation, etc. etc. to go against the KJV??? How come you can never find ONE thing that you will challenge the KJV with?
16.) Is there any translation, Greek/Hebrew text, manuscript, (or anything), that you will take "as THE word of God" and "NOT as the word of man" ? (1 Thes. 2:13)
17.) How come modern versions don't put words that they added to the text in italics?
18.) Would it not be blasphemous to pick up a book that you do not really believe is the word of God and say "this is the word of God"? Isn't that lying? If you believe the book you hold in your hands has errors in it than it can't be the word of God......can it?
19.) How come Paul told Timothy that he had known the "holy scriptures" (did Timothy's copies have errors?) and what did Paul mean by "all scripture IS given by inspiration of God and IS profitable....." ???? (2 Tim. 3:13-17) If only the LOST/DETERIORATED originals were inspired how could they presently ("IS") be profitable?
20.) How come you are so quick to tell us that the KJV is not the preservation of the inspired words of God but then you never tell us what actually IS the preserved inspired words of God? Don't you leave us at a dead end? Kind of a "cliff hanger" ain't it???
21.) How come the vast majority of modern translations change "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16 to "He appeared in the flesh"? Ignatius and Hippolytus quoted the verse as "GOD" well before 236 A.D. .....all thirty-two lectionaries that we have on 1 Tim. 3:16 have "GOD"......out of 254 Greek manuscripts on 1 Timothy 3:16 TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY TWO say "God"......the reading "God" is the OLDEST reading and it is the MAJORITY reading, but the NIV, NEB, ESV, ASV, NASB, RSV, Amplified, etc. etc. say "He". What an attack on the most amazing verse in the Bible on the Deity of Christ!!!!
22.) Where is the Book that God has magnified above His name? (Psalms 138:2)
23.) Y'all say that KJV Onlies are "idol worshippers" (one authority = monotheist )....but then doesn't that mean that your multiple authority policy makes you a POLYTHEIST "idol worshipper"???
24.) How come when y'all say "The original 1611 KJV had the apocrypha in it" y'all never mention that the apocrypha was put in BETWEEN the Old and New Testaments of scripture and that it was not labeled as scripture?
25.) How come the NIV (among other modern versions) change Psalms 12:7 without Hebrew authority so that it is does not guarantee the preservation of scripture?
26.) Why would the scriptures only be contained in the "original Hebrew and Greek"? Didn't God end His dealings with the Jews (Rom. 11) and didn't He want His gospel to go "far hence unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21)? God's plan for the "far hence...Gentiles" is this....
 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Wouldn't that be hard for the Gentiles to accomplish if they could not get the words of God? (Rom. 1:1-4, 10:17, 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 15:1-4, 2 Tim. 3:13-17) Where in the Bible (any version) does it even HINT that the word of God is bound to the original languages? My KJV says that "the word of God is NOT bound" (2 Tim. 2:9).
27.) Why do y'all think that the translation of "pascha" in Acts 12:4 is a translational error? How come y'all never point out that there is NO Greek word for "Easter" other than "pascha" and that TO THIS DAY "pascha" is what is used for "Easter" in Greece? The Greeks used "pascha" for Easter and the Jews used it for Passover. How come y'all never mention that?
28.) How come when y'all criticize "Easter" in Acts 12:4 y'all never point out that in the early English versions (Tyndale, Great, Bishop's) used Easter and Passover synonymously???
Tyndale's Bible (1525)
The first English Bible, from the so-called "original" Greek, translates "PASCHA" --"paschall lamb" in
Matthew 26:17, "ester" in the next verse (26:18), and "esterlambe" in the next verse (26:19). Also, it translates it "pascall lambe" in Mark 14:12 and "ester lambe" in Mark 14:14, 16. Then it has the nerve to translate 1 Cor. 5:7, "Christ oure esterlambe is offered up for us."
The Great Bible (1539)
The old "Great Bible" renders the Greek "PASCHA" - "passeover" in Matthew 26:17, "Easter" in the next verse (26:18), and “passeover” in the following verse (26:19). Huh? Could the passover feast and the Easter feast (spring feast) really be used synonymously? Well, that rendering could still be a fluke. Yet, the "Great Bible" translates "PASCHA” --the "Jewes Easter" AND "Easter" in John 11:55. Hmmmmm!
The Bishop's Bible (1568)
And what about the old Bishop's Bible? Well, it translates "PASCHA" - "Easter" twice in John 11:55
and "passeover"in the very next verse (12:1). (by Dr. Herb Evans)
Also the Luther Bible never even used the term "passover". Luther Bible: 1 Corinthians 5:7 Darum feget den alten Sauerteig aus, auf daß ihr ein neuer Teig seid, gleichwie ihr ungesäuert seid. Denn wir haben auch ein Osterlamm, das ist Christus, für uns geopfert. "Osterlamm" = "Easter Lamb"
29.) How come when y'all criticize "Easter" in Acts 12:4 y'all never point out that according to 12:3 the Passover was already OVER and that Easter is therefore the proper translation???
Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
It is clear from verse 3 "then were the days of unleavened bread" that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread which occur Abib 15-21 (Lev. 23:4-5) which is AFTER the Passover on Abib 14, the only possibility left is Easter.
30.) Y'all claim that y'all are Hebrew and Greek Only (no inspired translations) but then y'all still don't like TR men....which are Received Text Only. It would seem that your problem is not with the KJV but rather with submitting to a one-single FINAL AUTHORITY. Y'all don't want to submit to the KJV, the Majority Text manuscripts, nor anything else. Y'all want ALL and ANY manuscripts/versions to be in consideration. Do you agree?
31.) How come when y'all criticize Acts 19:37 (for saying "robbers of churches" rather than "robbers of temples") y'all never point out that there are churches named "The Baptist Temple" or "The Baptist Tabernacle"??? Y'all also never mention that the CHURCH (the body of Christ) is called a "HOLY TEMPLE in the Lord" in Ephesians 2:21.
32.) How come y'all always just say "1 John 5:7 was only a late reading..."??? Why don't y'all just give the MSS evidence and let God's people decide for themselves...unless you want to be the authority?
From Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory.
"Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.
While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:
In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed.Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'. Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:
As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses. " --Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory.
33.) Since koine Greek is a dead language and IF the word of God can only be found in koine Greek, doesn't that mean that God's word returns unto Him "void" ? Isaiah 55: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.  For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
34.) When y'all make the claim that King James was a queer, how come y'all never point out that this slanderous accusation was based on a non-eye witness account and that it was not made until 25 years after the death of King James? (and that it was one of King James's enemies that started the accusation?)
35.) How come y'all never show the list of inspired translations in the Bible? (Genesis 42:18-20, 42:23, Ezra 4:7-11, Ps. 110:1 with Luke 20:42-43, Mark 5:54, Acts 22, Acts 26:14, and Matthew 27:46 with Mark 15:34. )
36.) How come y'all never show the vast similarities between the New World Translation (JW bible), the Catholic Douay-Rheims bible, and the modern versions? How come y'all never mention that they are all based on the same Greek manuscripts?
37.) How come y'all never mention that Art Farstad (NKJV head) does not even use the NKJV and never has??? (Farstad admitted this on live television in 1996, John Ankerberg Show)
38.) How come y'all never mention that Virgina Mallencott (NIV editor) was an openly-queer queer? (and that Ken Barker knew this but STILL consulted her for his translation...see G. Riplinger's Blind Guides and New Age Versions)
39.) How come y'all have never compiled a list of truths that the KJV omits, attacks, or waters down in comparison to the modern versions? Perhaps because the KJV does not attack any sound doctrines.
40.) Why did the 1970 edition of the New English Bible say "As she sat on the ass, she broke wind, and Caleb asked her, What did you mean by that? " in Judges 1:14? There is no Hebrew authority for inserting the poot into the text. And why did it say in Ps. 22:16 (in regards to Christ's crucifixion) "they hacked off my hands and my feet" instead of "they pierced my hands and my feet".....there was no Hebrew authority for the reading and Christ's hands and feet did not get hacked off. The very next verse (v.17) says that His bones were intact.
41.) Since you don't have ONE final authority, could you at least give me a list of the manuscripts, versions, etc. that you believe (collectively) are the preservation of the inspired words of God exactly how they were in the original autographs??? (according to 1 Pet. 1:23-25, Heb. 4:12, Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33)
42.) How come when y'all make the statement "it is God's truth that is preserved, not exact words" y'all never quote John 17:17 along with it? Kind of debunks your statement, eh? "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17)
43.) Why do y'all believe that the word "baptism" means "immerse"??? That is not how the Greek NT uses the word. In 1 Cor. 10:1-2 the baptism "unto Moses" was not an immersion--it was an identification, none of the Jews got wet. Baptism by Christ with the Holy Ghost into a person is described as a "falling" and "pouring" (Joel 2, Acts 10, Matt. 3)--not an immersion. In 1 Peter 3:20-21 the flood baptism was not an immersion. God POURED out rain, He did not dip or immerse the earth. How come the modern versions don't replace the word baptism with "immerse"? How come y'all never point out that "baptize" had been an English word at least since 1382 with Wycliffe's Bible ???
44.) Why do y'all say that KJV Onlies are "divisive" "church splitters" ??? It was the modern versions that intruded in on KJV believers.....the KJV Onlies did not provoke the fight.
45.) Why do y'all use the phrase "the original Greek text says...." when there is no such thing (and never has been) a Greek text called "the original"??? Perhaps you mean "the original autographs...", however, you have never see the original autographs because they no longer exist.
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell