Well, I replied that it was a good version and I liked it but it was not inerrant and infallible. Why did I say that? I really prefer not to have these conversation's, but I also am opposed to people stretching the truth. I then confessed that I was somewhat of a theologian, and that I had taught New Testament at a seminary, and could read Greek a little, and that, while very good and quite accurate, the King James version was not inerrant. He became angry, told me that he had to leave and would not discuss it further. He then (smile) went on telling me about textus receptus, and all the other codeces, and how the King James Version was the only one authorized by God. His reasoning was that God would not give us a bible that had errors.
I once again began to try to point out some of the errors that I think are especially troublesome and he got angrier and said, no, I am not going to discuss this any farther. When I became silent, he began again to try to convince me that the King James Version was the only version that was correct. He said that I could read other versions if I wanted to but they would not be sufficient and that I needed to only consult the King James as the final authority.