Kjv only

J. Remington Bowling:

A better approach would be to adopt something like what Alasdair MacIntyre suggests in After Virtue: 

"A necessary first step would be for them to come to understand what it is to think in the terms prescribed by that particular rival tradition, to learn how to think as if one were a convinced adherent of that rival tradition. To do this requires the exercise of a capacity for philosophical imagination that is often lacking. A second step is to identify, from the standpoint of the adherents of that rival tradition, its crucially important unresolved issues and unsolved problems—unresolved and unsolved by the standards of that tradition—which now confront those adherents and to enquire how progress might be made in moving towards their resolution and solution."

this is a good word. 

Mike Tourangeau:

I told my wife, it felt like I had been slurping water off a rock all my life and now I could wade in and dunk my head under the water and drink till my heart was content! I get emotional just thinking of how this first felt. 

Thanks for sharing.  I too have many KJVO family members.

I've seen several suggestions of materials for TR only, but none really for KJV only.

I am KJV only. I'd suggest that the best work today still comes from Peter Ruckman, despite his many detractors. I'd recommend reading a few of his books if you'd like to know the KJV only position, instead of reading what people say ABOUT his books.

I watched your video also. I'll suggest a few books based on what I heard from your position.

First, you point out that we have lots of manuscripts and we can see the textual variants in Logos. Dr. Ruckman discusses those various extant manuscripts from a KJV only position in "Manuscript Evidence": http://a.co/d/d76u0nE 

Second, you make the point that we have many brilliant minds in textual scholarship that mostly agree on the issue. Dr. Ruckman would call this an "argument from authority." "The Very Serious People mostly agree, so it can be trusted." For the KJV only argument against using that approach, I'd recommend: "King James Onlyism vs Scholarship Onlyism": http://a.co/d/8bccvPx And another on this subject: "Biblical Scholarship": http://a.co/d/cC9pTV8
Third, you mention in your video that we have most of the words, and we're only unsure of the readings in a handful of areas- and that none of those areas affect doctrine, so we can be secure knowing generally what the scripture says. But the KJV only approach stems from the idea that we are promised that God would preserve all of his words, not just most of them. "... every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God..." and so on (I won't rehash the argument here, I'm just raising the point). The KJV only emphasis is on every word, not just "most words" and not just "the general idea" or "the major doctrines." So if we're promised that God would preserve every word, the question is raised: where are they today? A simple booklet discussing why Dr. Ruckman believes it is the KJV can be found here: Why I believe the King James Bible is the Word of God: http://a.co/d/6rnR2UJ I hope this helps! Please note that I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to answer your initial call for KJV only material. 

Let me add that Dr. Ruckman has some problematic stuff, but I hope everyone can read for his points on the above topics, and skip over the material that is not pertinent to the KJV only topic. His off-topic materials and comments can be distracting and have deterred many from reading his good points on the larger issue; please separate the meat from the bones and you'll find some very compelling arguments.

Kiyah:

Speak of Mobile Ed courses, a Mobile Ed course that's not related to the KJVO debate itself but more related to the question of bible translations in general is BI181 - Introducing Bible Translations. I picked this up when they were offering it as part of the free book (course) of the month resources (I think it was one of the add-ons).

It doesn't deal with textual issues as I recall but more so focuses on the differences in translations and on translation methodology. I thought it was really helpful even as someone who's been to seminary, since there are nuggets/tidbits of info that I hadn't come across in school.

https://www.logos.com/product/54353/mobile-ed-bi181-introducing-bible-translations

This is a great course. One of the best i have seen.

Anthony,

This debate can be confusing to anyone who hasn't been exposed to it before. First of all, no one is saying that you must learn English to read God's Word, or that you cannot read it in the original languages.

At the risk of going a bit beyond what the forum guidelines allow, I believe there are basically three broad issues involved.

1. The correct textual basis for the Bible: in other words, are the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts used in translating the King James Version (and other translations of that period) the inerrant and infallible Word of God, or should we be looking at modern critical texts;
2. The reliability of the King James version: in other words, is the translation that the English-speaking world relied on for 400 years the inerrant and infallible Word of God; and
3. The status of English translations that differ from the King James: in other words, there are passages in which the newer translations differ significantly from the King James.  Are they changing the Word of God?

None of that has anything to do with, for example, the Luther translation into German. Or with the traditional Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox churches, or the traditional Masoretic text used in synagogues. It's really a debate about what to do with modern textual criticism, and whether we have an authoritative English version that we can fully and completely rely on as God's Word - down to the very last word and comma.

Or more fundamentally, can we rely on God's providence to have made sure that the English Bible my grandparents lived by, and that many still study today, is without error. As you might imagine, that can become incredibly important if you have a very high view of Scripture and English is your only language.

David Ames:

The whole debate comes to two resources:

Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

Do we accept them as the true word of God or burn them as garbage? 

Not to be too aerobic, but would you go for half of two resources? The other inspired half (per the retained other half) got chunked a ways back.

David Ames:

Do you mean the half where God was left out of one whole book?   [[the section that got Chunked about 400 ad?]]  [[Another can of worms]]

[[Do we always throw things away after 400 years??]]

The greek jewish Bible.