The King James Bible was not a brand-new, sudden creation.From the way that some speak of it -- the KJV was an independent entity; miraculous in conception.But, those are wrong notions. According to some estimates the KJV New Testament is 95% word-for-word William Tyndale's work.But let's reduce that down to 75% for the sake of argument.Were the KJV revisors responsible for 25% new stuff?Nay I say.The KJV team borrowed extensively from what preceded it.We know William Tyndale's (brand-new)translation was appropriated(without credit I might add);but the Geneva,Bishop's Bible,Douai-Rheims and others were gleaned for material that the KJV revisors included in their work. Some extremists claim that the Tyndale chain up through the Bishop's Bible were authentic,inspired versions before the advent of the KJV.Perhaps these extremists would say that those prior versions were 80-90% God-breathed -- that the KJV was the first really pure Word of God in English. But even though the KJV text remains very close to the English versions of the preceeding 85 years these folks holding to an extreme position on the Anglican Version willm not give any slack to the MV's like NKJ,NASB and NIV. No matter the similiarity to the KJV for large portions of the text the very idea that a non-KJV Bible can also be the Word of God is anathema to them.Why?? That last paragraph gave too much credit to the KJV standard mentality.Even if a MV differed substantially from the KJV does not negate it from being the Word of God.And by "differed" I am referring to not using similiar wording -- not doctrinally.Any opened-minded person knows that the MV's I referenced above (and many more could be named)would not alter a single doctrine that the KJV teaches -- despite all the booing on the sidelines that my well-tuned ears can now detect.