circular reasoning (noun):
a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this".
Example: "The NIV disagrees with the KJV; therefore the NIV is wrong and the KJV is right."
If the NIV disagrees with the KJV it proves that the NIV disagrees with the KJV. Nothing more.
Now, if the NIV were a translation of the KJV and it disagreed, you could make the former argument. But the NIV is NOT a translation of the KJV. To prove the NIV (or any other) translation invalid you must establish a difference between what was said in the original Greek text and how it was translated.
"I've studied different Bible versions, and read many of them over the past 12 or so years. I have found the King James Version to be the best, non-contradictive, and the inerrant word of God." -Candy
I do wish I had that kind of discernment (or omniscience?!) too.
Interesting websites here & here & here.