The King James Version.....

How about option that it is a good translation, but there are other Translation can be chosen to use? Its neither the only valid one, nor a perfect one...

 

Would you agree with that option?

 

I was recently doing a Rev. study, and found that I prefer KJV , NASB, or NKJV versions.
I was somewhat confused with some of the wording in the ESV. For example calling the Antichrist 'it' instead of he.

VW

 

I chose " I used to use many other versions - but now I am convinced of KJ- only " because my choice wasn't there:

" Have used it since believing on Christ, and have never stopped using it."

I couldn't see choosing the "...all others are corrupt", since I would use a small number of English translations if I did not have an AV...
Ones such as the Bishop's, Coverdale's, and perhaps a Great Bible...as well as Tyndale's New Testament.
If nothing else is available, I would take comfort in an NKJV.

If nothing in English is available, I'll settle for TR-based translations in other languages, like the Reina-Valera 1604 ( Antigua ) and the Louis Segond 1874.

I tried over the years to use other modern English translations, they all felt strange.
Even the NKJV to an extent.
On the other hand, Tyndale's felt OK, and it was a joy to read through an old Bishop's Bible once at a local university library.

I say "felt", because the "KJV" simply resonates with my spirit, as do others that read similarly.


So, I stuck with the AV and will die with it.

 

Your reasoning sounds a lot like those Mormon missionaries who like to talk about feeling the burning from God in their bosom to know that Mormon doctrines are true!i
You really like the kjv and use it a lot, so modern versions would read strange to you, but not any sign that they are defective at all!