Like I said, you reject all Bibles as merely the work of men, having errors, like any humanist.
You have no word of God (which by definition is flawless), by your own admission. And we should listen to you? I trow not.
Perhaps readers can see that you advocate the same erroneous "all or nothing" human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning concerning Bible translations as that stated by extreme KJV-only author Terence McLean.
Referring to the KJV, Terence McLean wrote: "If you would change one word (Easter) you are one the slippery slope to total infidelity towards God's words" (
History of Your Bible Proving the King James to be the perfectly preserved words of God, p. 12).
Terence McLean asserted: "My position would be that the difference between the person who rejects or corrects even one word in God's Bible and the atheist who rejects every word in God's Bible is only a matter of degree: both are infidels" (p. 11).
According to a consistent application of your own assertions, George, those who had the 1611 edition of the KJV had "no word of God" since the 1611 edition had and has some proven errors.
According to a consistent application of your own assertions, we should not listen to the KJV translators since by your reasoning they did not have any word of God since they acknowledged that Bible translations had some blemishes and imperfections [flaws].
There were evidently also some flaws or imperfections in the printed editions of the original language texts consulted by the makers of the KJV since it is a fact that they did not follow any one edition of the Hebrew OT text and any one edition of the Greek NT text 100%. According to your own stated reasoning, George, the KJV translators did not have the word of God to translate since there were actual flaws in their printed editions [some introduced by the type-setters or printers and some where the editors may have followed imperfect original-language manuscript copies since the KJV translators did not translate what was in that edition as they chose to follow another edition or another source such as the Latin Vulgate]. It should be clear that your own stated reasoning would undermine or destroy the very foundation on which the KJV is based.