Greetings, Bible Protector,
I don’t mean to be argumentative; however, to set the record straight, I never said what this sentence of yours in your third reply implies I said, if you can find where I said this, I will admit that I made a statement in error and was totally wrong in this regard..
((That is also why it is inaccurate to say that the textual history of the KJB is limited to 1769, or that people are using the 1769 Edition today.))

I overlooked the implication of this sentence when I read your reply. You evidently assumed again to position that I have never taken. Your reply I thought was in response to me and my post and not in general tone to any and all, especially with this implication of this sentence, as I did mention the 1611-1769 KJB Bible a number of times in my post and replies. I am not above being corrected as we all should be, However, I will defend a faulty assumption of a position that I have never taken. We should represent each others positions in a fair manner. My statements in this area in my original post are the following:

“.The modern versions have no foundation to stand on as they all disagree in scripture rendering, so who is the final authority to say which bible is right, if we reject the KJB 1611-1769 as the true Holy Bible?

Naturally those editions following the text of the 1611-1769 are also the true Holy Bible if the text is not changed, excluding any mistaken printing errors etc, and I never meant to imply they are not.

“However, now Christians are regularly being told in many ways that the 400 year old AV KJB 1611-1769 is just to hard read and understand, the language is to out dated for the modern mind to understand, the are grave errors in it , it is not an accurate translation, and it needs to be updated.”

Again that would include any in the 1611-1769 tradition.

Here is what I said in my first reply to your initial comments concerning the 1911-1769 KJB.

“I would never debate whether the 1769 or 1900 is the perfection of the KJB 1611”.

Blessings,Clyde