That's a shame, Jason. As I've said to you before, I am an ardent defender of Sola Scriptura, but I don't agree that doctrine is at all compromised by having multiple English translations of God's word, or by where one comes down on the idea of any special and providential preservation of an English language Bible on God's part.
I've attempted in this thread to answer your specific objections (the specific one we finished on being what is meant by Godhead, and why modern translations use of 'divine nature' or similar is in keeping with the KJV's use of Godhead, and the change does not at all undermine the intent and meaning of the texts, particularly Colossians), so I'm a little sad you feel the need to tap out at this stage. I'm certainly not afraid of being the horse, but I just disagree with your specific choice of watering hole (to carry the analogy on overlong ) I was hoping you might point to specific comparisons in Riplinger's book you found illuminating so we could discuss them specifically, but perhaps another time.
I'm also sad that you still seem to think the modern translations are somehow still deliberately trying to 'push' unbiblical messages in their rendering of the text- I was hoping at this point that we could at least agree the changes are made on the basis of what people believe the original biblical texts to actually say, and not out of an attempt to undermine that text.
But I'm glad we managed to keep it civil and thoughtful at some levels. Thanks for that chat - feel free to chat in PM at any stage if you prefer. Blessings, stay well.