One thing that KJV-onlyists should realize is that they're not using the original KJV (and it wasn't called the 'KJV' either, but the Authorized Version of 1611).
John 3:16 For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
And what do the KJV-onlyists use? A modern 'update' to the old text:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
According to the KJV-only logic, the version they are using would be 'perverted' since it's not using the original character set and also contains additions like the apocrypha and also a preface that states it's NOT inspired; all of which is conveniently removed for the modern united states KJV-onlyist
How 'convenient' that they get to ignore and remove the original AV 1611 preface
How 'convenient' that they get to ignore that it had the apocrypha
How 'convenient' that they get to ignore the fact it uses mythological creatures
How 'convenient' that they get to make a special exception for the fact it's okay to update the character set, but impose unequal restrictions such as removing the apocrypha and preface
How 'convenient' that they ignore that King James VI & I himself made his own
translations of various passages of the Bible.
In other words, there's too much of a 'double standard' for the KJV to magically become inspired *once* it has received a rather heavy modernization today. Of course "believeth" still hasn't been changed to "believes", when it should. Otherwise you'll go talking around like a 17th century buffoon. Oh! But that old english is clearly inspired
; so let us use an antiquated vocabulary instead in the year 2015. Absolutely.
Possibly one of the BIGGEST problems of using the KJV in 2015 with its old English, is that modern speakers very commonly misinterpret certain phrases
and emphasis, that don't seem so obvious at first.
John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that euery one which seeth the Sonne, and beleeueth on him, [highlight=yellow]may haue euerlasting life[/highlight]: and I will raise him vp at the last day.
"may have everlasting life", the "may have" was not meant to question it, but directly state you will. In modern English, this isn't usually interpreted this way. Of course if we just pop straight to the Greek, there is no "may have" so it's not even an issue!
John 6:40 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν [highlight=yellow]ἔχῃ ζωὴν[/highlight] αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
Literally "have life" in the highlighted Greek.
Here are more examples:
Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest yron mixt with myrie clay, [highlight=yellow]they shall mingle themselues[/highlight] with the seede of men: but they shall not cleaue one to an other, euen as yron is not mixed with clay.
"mingle" in 2015 means something completely different than it did in 1611.
Exodus 28:13 And thou shalt make [highlight=yellow]ouches[/highlight] of gold;
Ouches? Nobody in 2015 will be able to interpret that without consulting an ancient dictionary, otherwise it looks like the plural form of "ouch".
Leviticus 13:24 Or if there be any flesh in the skin whereof there is a hot burning, and the [highlight=yellow]quicke flesh[/highlight] that burneth haue a white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white;
Nobody in 2015 will think "quick flesh" means "alive flesh".
Genesis 44:15 And Ioseph said vnto them, What deed is this that ye haue done?[highlight=yellow]wote ye not[/highlight], that such a man as I can certainely diuine?
"wot ye not", nobody uses "wot" (which means 'know') anymore! Nobody.
It's a lost cause, the Authorized Version of 1611 uses extremely archaic and antiquated English; KJV-onlyists are not aware of it because they don't stress every single page of their modernized AV 1611s.