King James Only?

It is a wonderful thing that this year we will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. A beautiful translation, full of depth, and with a proud tradition. It is a crying shame that this event will be spoilt by those claiming the King James Version is the only correct English Bible. This blog is not an attack on the KJV nor do I have a problem with those who prefer it as the best translation. The problem is with those who say it's the only correct translation.
Most of the arguments given for their belief is based on tradition and conjecture, not textual criticism (an understanding of the original languages and the various manuscripts). For example, the KJV has been the best selling Bible for over 400 years. This may be so, yet it does not prove anything. Only textual criticism can prove which is the best translation. KJV only advocates will say that other translation have left critical verses out of the Bible such as 1 John 5:7 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one'. Therefore, so says KJV only-ists, other versions deny the Trinity. Well, if the doctrine of the Trinity rested upon 1 John 5:7 we'd be in trouble. The doctrine is spread throughout the scriptures and can be found in other versions. I could apply the same critical method upon the KJV. Isaiah 45:7 'I form the light and the darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things'. Did God create evil? Well, no he didn't, Isaiah 45:7 is better understood with the NIV ' I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.' I'm not saying that the KJV promotes that God creates evil, the meaning of that word 'evil' has changed. What I am doing is using an example of the flawed method's of KJV only-ists.
When the topic does get onto textual criticism, half truths and conjectures do not disappear from their arguments. The KJV is translated from a source known as the Textus Receptus ( Latin: recieved text) This is not an original source, it is a compilation of various manuscripts. Most of these manuscripts are based upon those of Byzantine tradition. KJV only will say that these manuscripts are better than the Alexandrian texts used by other translations. What they don't tell you is that the Byzantine manuscripts are based on Alexandrian and Western texts. The use the same source. The problem that KJV only-ists have with the Alexandrian texts is conjecture. Kent Hovind suggests that the Alexandrian texts were corrupted by gnostics such as Origen and were used less because they weren't any good, therefore, they lasted longer. Well this is pure conjecture which is flawed in it's logic. If a group of heretics were going to use their heretical Bible they would use it often enough. But this isn't the case. It is well known that acient artefacts such as manuscripts are kept better in climates such as Egypt. This is the probabal cause of their longevity. There is also evidence that Origen used multiple translations called the Hexapla in order to be open about getting back to the original text, rather than him corrupting and producing a single text.
Again I want to say that I'm not against the KJV or those who prefer it. But I believe those who are KJV only are heretical in that they add to the doctrine of scripture. The go beyond the orthodox view of inspiration and inerrancy. Their view is gnostic in character as they view the KJV as a 'recieved text'. Paul thought hard against those Christians claiming to have special revelation. We see this attitude in modern cults such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witness's. Unfortuanlty the same character is in the view of KJV only.