An obvious problem with KJV-only advocates is that they argue backwards from a translation (the King James Version) and dig up whatever ancient support (Greek, Latin, etc.) they can that might possibly support the English words of that translation instead of starting with the primary sources themselves and allowing those to determine which English words should be used to communicate the words of God most properly. So we find them praising most manuscripts when the KJV follows them, but castigating them when it doesn't; praising the ancient Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts when the KJV follows them, damning them (sometimes as Satanic) when it doesn't; loving the Latin Vulgate when the KJV follows it, dismissing it when it doesn't, etc. And so it goes for any difference one finds between the KJV and any modern version. There is no reasoning with them, because the KJV can't be wrong. But why? And here is the main problem with KJV ONLY advocates: "If the KJV is wrong," they ponder, "then God hasn't preserved his Word perfectly and thus he's a liar and thence the whole world must be damned to hell; THEREFORE the KJV must be right." (I'm exaggerating a bit, but basically this is their primary presumption and the flaw that drives their whole system.) And again, "Remember," they logically argue to themselves, "all translations have differences, and thus either all translations are wrong in some places or one of them is right in every place." Basically this is the same apologetic starting point for the primacy of Christianity over all the others that differ from Christianity. Then they continue: "Of course, all of the translations can't be imperfect, since that would make God a liar." From this they "deduce" that the KJV must be the only perfect one. So when one comes upon the rare case where the KJV follows no Greek manuscripts, such as in the famous span of the Textus Receptus constructed by Erasmus from the Latin (since his single Greek manuscript of Revelation was defective near the end [even though today we have hundreds of Greek manuscripts of Revelation available to us]) we find their explanations less than satisfactory (to put it kindly). For example, in Revelation 22:18 we find that the KJV says "For I testify . . ." even though no Greek manuscripts have the word "for." So they say that it's okay to add conjunctions like that if it makes better sense in translation (but God forbid if any modern translators ever ADD words to the word of God where the KJV doesn't -- may the plagues of Revelation fall upon them and damn them!). Or they say that maybe some Latin manuscripts actually preserved the original "for" and that all Greek manuscripts with the original reading eventually perished (i.e. God failed to preserve his word in the Greek manuscript tradition, a conclusion not peculiar at all to them considering their presumption summarized above). KJV advocates' false presumption determines their many strange arguments to defend their false presumption. Remember, their presumption is that the KJV can't be wrong, or God has failed. Put in these terms, one discovers why many of them take the defense of the KJV to a spiritual level, assuming, as some of them must, eternal rewards due to the eternal nature of the debate (remember: God's eternal attribute of truthfulness is at stake here!), and consequently eternal punishment for those who, they presume, attack God's truthfulness. This is the problem with KJV ONLY in a nutshell. Brother Jordan Kurecki, do I have that about right?