I also may have seemed to be in "attack mode", but since I KNOW, without a doubt, that KJVO(or any other one-version Onlyism) is WRONG,I come down upon it pretty hard.
I find the "differences in versions" argument used by the KJVOs to be wrong for two reasons: First, they CANNOT PROVE that material they say is OMITTED from some versions wasn't ADDED in others.Second, there are glaring differences between the narrations of the same events in both the OT & the NT of the KJV and every other valid version, but yet these narrations have been considered Scripture for a LONG time.
I find the "differences in versions" argument used by the KJVOs to be wrong for two reasons: First, they CANNOT PROVE that material they say is OMITTED from some versions wasn't ADDED in others.Second, there are glaring differences between the narrations of the same events in both the OT & the NT of the KJV and every other valid version, but yet these narrations have been considered Scripture for a LONG time.