KING JAMES VERSION OR BUST, BABY!

The original King James contained the Apocrypha…

...

I’ve seen one of those. Mid 19th C. print

i still can't find the part of scripture that said we should wait 1,500 years after Christ for the king james authorized bible in ye kinge's englishe to be saved

strawman

the KJV is not the word of God, the word of God was given to us through translations throughout history. ergo, we must choose the earliest translations and listen to the interpretations of the earliest Church teachings for the truth

Ok, but this is a separate argument. I guess you're conceding that you presented a strawman.
No. The word (not meaning Christ) was given to us in the original languages. However early a translation arrived, or a doctrine was articulated, is entirely irrelevant to it's potential accuracy.

How is it a straw-man? You choose to read scripture literally, and there is no part of scripture recognizing a later english translation as "the word of God".

This is a strawman
There is not a KJV supporter who claims the gospel in the KJV has exclusive salvific authority. A "strawman" is when you set up and knock down an argument that your opponent isn't making.

This is also a strawman, and a completely unrelated argument
Nobody claims that scripture has to validate a later translation (literally what)
This does not follow from using a "literal" hermeneutic

If this is bait it's 7/10

LOL, perhaps they were just larpers then. If it the KJV does not have salvific authority (obviously), then there is no reason to regard the KJV any more than as a nice Bible translation.

Then you yourself must acknowledge there's no reason to give even one hoot for the KJV. Anderson would throw you out of his church by now.