Note: Ain't it strange that his first three questions do not have anything to do with the KJB?
1.) Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than the KJV has been)
HOSS: Which Latin Vulgate??? The TRULY VULGAR vulgate (l50 A.D.) or the Catholic Jerome's vulgate??? I have a Latin Vulgate (Jerome's), but I am not fluent in Latin so I really can't say much. However, it does call Joseph the "father" of Jesus in Luke 2:33 (Et erat pater ejus et mater mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo.) so I can safely say that Jerome's Vulgate is not the word of God perfectly preserved. Though just about any version will contain SOME of the inspired words of God, maybe even whole verses.
2.) Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: despite its obvious imperfections and inclusion of apocryphal books, the KJV translators still called it "the word of God")
HOSS: Not sure about that....but I do know that the Septuigant is not the inspired word of God and it is corrupt (it has the apocrypa in the Old Testament scriptures!). Meanwhile Jerome's vulgate, Vaticanus, and Siniaticus have the apocrypha in the Old Testament scriptures as well! They're corrupt garbage. (Note: Siniaticus even has apocryphal books in the New Testament scriptures!)
3.) Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?
HOSS: As a volume, none of them stood alone as perfect. They had problems with them. But collectively they might possibly have had the preserved words of God in them, though I have not compared them (as a collection) to the KJB.
4.) Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?)
Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted?
Any edition, though some contained printers errors.
Why do they differ, even occasionally in words?
There were thousands of printers errors in the first editions. (just like any Bible or book printed in that time period). The spellings, punctuation, and font have been updated as well over the years.
(And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers?
God is the preserver of scripture (Psalms 12:6-7) and He inspires the creation of original autographs and He also inspires the preservation of the originals. Any preserved scripture is inspired (1 Pet. 1:23-25, Psa. 12:6-7, 2 Tim. 3:15-17, Heb. 4:12-13). Now as for your question, do you honestly think that God inspires printing presses and printing machines? Or do you think that God inspires every printer/copyist that has attempted producing scripture? Of course He hasn't. Preservation is something GOD DOES (Psa. 12:7) and can take care of on His own. He does not need twirps like you asking "why would God...." questions. Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? (Rom 11:34)
Meanwhile you might as well have asked "Why would God inspire words but then allow people to misquote scripture when trying to memorize it?"
Just because God brought forth a perfect compilation of His inspired words in 1611 does not mean that every printer and printing press became "inspired" and without error. Printers did not become infallible.
The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?)
Because I have faith (unlike you). I believe that God said what He meant in Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, and 2 Tim. 3:15-17. The word of God is preserved for us. I don't sit around worrying if my Bible has a printer mistake in it. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2 Tim. 1:7)
5.) Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?
HOSS: I like the Cambridge text and the Cambridge mimicks, but I am not a Bible snob. I'll take any KJB. None of them have errors or contradictions. Though certain American publishers have Americanized some words here and there. Such as "throughly" to "thoroughly" and other similar changes.
6.) If passages like Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt 5:18 are about the KJV, what did these passages mean in 1610? In 1500? In 500 AD? Do these things, in the original context, have anything to do with a 17th century English translation of scripture?
HOSS: Whhhooooaaaa buddy. Those verses on preservation are NOT talking about any particular edition of any text/manuscript in any language at any given time. Those verses (Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, and 2 Tim. 3:15-17) are talking about God's words in ANY language in ANY text at ANY given time. "The word of God is not bound" (2 Tim. 2:9), preservation does not involve any one language, text, translation, or time period.
7.) When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?
HOSS: What does that mean? There are no contradictions in the Bible. Also, many archaic terms can be defined by comparing scripture with scripture (1 Cor. 2:13, John 6:63). But there is nothing wrong with looking up what a word means if you don't know what the word means.
But tell me this, if ALL texts, manuscripts, translations, lexicons, etc. ARE fallible and NOT perfectly preserved (as you say).....why do you bother with them? Why do you study fallible manuscripts?
8.) Suppose you lived in the 10th or 15th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?
HOSS: There was not a KJB prior to 1611, so there would be nothing for me to contradict. I was not around then so I really cannot tell you anything about those bibles and translations.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE "BIG 2" QUESTIONS
HOSS: And that is what your questions are, a whole lot of #2.
9.) The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from it, and how was it "final" if the KJV replaced it? Explain.
HOSS: Classic. You want me to identify a perfect and complete volume of the inspired words of God prior to 1611. You want me to name something that is not identical to the KJB so that I will have differing authorities. However, your question is not that realistic, "Where was a complete, perfect, without error, inspired preservation of God's words in one volume FOUR HUNDRED AND THREE YEARS AGO". I think the better question is "WHERE IS THE WORD OF GOD RIGHT NOW".
But here is my post on the topic "where was the word of God before 1611". (in green)
containing the old and new testaments
1611 Authorized King James Version
Translated out of the original tongues
and with former translations
diligently compared and revised
by his magesty's special command "
The word of God (prior to 1611) was in the former translations and the Hebrew and Greek languages. The KJB is a compilation of the correct (inspired) readings from those sources. The TR, Majority Text, Alexandrian Text, Old Latin, Old Syriac, early translations, etc. ALL have SOME inspired words and whole verses.
 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 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.
False premise of Bible correctors (Part 2)
KJB Inspiration (quote)
10.) If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of KJV-onlyism, is it not then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place?
HOSS: You were correct, this question is some "big number-2".
What you are calling "KJV Onlyism" is just believing what the Bible says about itself. The Bible says about itself that it is inspired, pure, holy, preserved, etc. and that is what I believe about it. I believe that the Bible is the King James Version, feel free to believe those things about any version you wish. There is nothing "extra biblical" about believing what the Bible says about itself.
Well I have answered the Scholarship Only questions.....now why don't they answer mine?
Questions for the anti-KJV.