Is the King James Bible the Only Good Bible?
Some are taught that the King James Bible is the only trustworthy Bible out there. That we should never read anything other than the KJV when reading God's Word. I can assure you this is not based on the truth of God.
Other Versions omit verses that are in the King James version.
This is true, but contrary to what many are told, they did not omit the verses out of some dark secret desire to corrupt the Word. There is actually a very good reason they omitted the verses. I would even go as far as to say that if the same exact people who translated the KJV Bible originally, were to start from scratch and do it again, they would also omit the same verses. Why? Because there is very good reason to believe they are not supposed to be there.
When the KJV was originally translated, they used all of the ancient manuscripts that were available at the time and they did a wonderful job of translating them. But that was 408 years ago! We have learned more about the Hebrew and Greek languages in that 408 years and more importantly, we have discovered many more ancient manuscripts in those 408 years. In fact, we have found many manuscripts that date further back than the oldest we had in 1611 when the KJV was translated.
The belief is that if you have multiple manuscripts of the same book, but they have small differences, the oldest manuscripts are given more authority as there has been less time between them and the original document. When the writers of the Bible wrote these books, they didn't have printing presses to make a thousand perfect copies. They had to have scribes sit down and copy them all by hand. As years went by, more scribes would make copies of them. Sometimes those scribes would make mistakes. Sometimes they added or omitted words or even parts of verses. Sometimes they intentionally changed a particular word because the modern era (at that time) tended to use different words. Sort of like when we update versions today and use modern words in place of words nobody uses anymore. Unfortunately sometimes those minor and seemingly minuscule changes made a great difference.
For example, let's look at 2 Thessalonians 2:2 in the King James version and the New American Standard Bible.
2 Thessalonians 2:2 (KJV)
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2 Thessalonians 2:2 (NASB)
2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
In particular I want you to notice the last part of the verse. What day Paul is referencing here. In the NASB it is the "Day of the Lord". In the KJV, it is "Day of Christ". It turns out that King James and Youngs are the only major versions that use "Christ". Every other major version uses the word "Lord". Why did other versions use Lord? Because all of the oldest manuscripts we have now used "Lord". This gives a strong belief to the idea that the original used the word "Lord" and at one point a scribe who was copying it chose to use "Christ" instead, believing that small change would not make any difference. At the time the KJV was translated, that manuscript was probably the oldest we had, so they went with "Christ".
Here is the thing. Go to BibleGateway.com and type "Day of the Lord" (use the quote marks to keep it literal to that exact phrase) and then do the same with "Day of Christ". You will find that every verse that uses "Day of Christ" are verses about the rapture. All of the other verses that use "Day of the Lord" are all verses that have to do with God's anger, God's wrath, or the Great Tribulation in the end times. As harmless of a difference as it seems there is between Christ and Lord, the Bible is particularly specific to which phrase is used in every circumstance. So the KJV and Youngs has the verse speaking about the rapture. The other versions which have adapted to the older manuscripts we have found since the KJV was translated all speak of the Great Tribulation.
This isn't the only case. The King James Version is filled with added portions to verses that the oldest manuscripts don't have.
Well other versions were translated from the King James or other versions and the King James was translated right from the manuscripts.
Yes and No. Some of the other versions were simply translated from another version and include all of the original versions mistakes. Maybe adding a few of their own as a consequence. But the better versions have still had multiple top scholars who have gone over them and looked for words from the Greek or Hebrew that were not correct. Not to mention the thousands of amateurs who are consistently studying the Bible by looking up the original words and seeing what they should be translated to.
I have also heard some of the other versions were translated by non-Christians and even satanists.
And again, the truth to that is yes and no. Were there non-believers and even atheists who helped translate some of them? Yes. Is that bad? No. The fear is that they would have no reason to want to make it right and would change things just to mess it up. Not really true. They have their entire careers on the line. If they were to change things intentionally and it was traced to them? It could end their careers. On top of that, they do not have religious bias either. Let's say only Christians are translating the Bible. What if some believe the rapture happens at the end of the tribulation and others believe it happens before the tribulation? If they come across a verse that supports the opposite of what they believe, will they change it some? The reason you don't need to worry about that so much is for the same reason you don't need to worry about the atheists. They have their careers on the line and they are not the only one who is translating it. Every part of the Bible has multiple translators working on it when they go back to the Hebrew and Greek. Not just one person.
As for satanists translating the Bibles? I have seen no evidence of this. I believe this rumor derived from the fact that the company that distributed certain versions of the Bible had also distributed the satanic bible. Satanists did not have any direct association with the translations. Satanists just happened to use the same company to have their bible produced. The company that produced it is not satanic. They are just not religious. They have no play in the game. They see the Holy Bible and the satanic bible as nothing more than books to produce.
So are you saying the other versions are better than the King James?
Not saying that at all. What I am saying is there is no real evidence that the King James is a much superior or more accurate version than any other version like some believe. I am saying that some of the other versions are very good versions of the Bible and are still the Word of God.
With that said, I will also say that not all versions are equal. There are some bad versions. There are some very inaccurate versions. The King James Bible is a top end Bible, but it has a few minor flaws. On top of that it is very hard to understand at times. My personal favorite is the New American Standard Bible (NASB). I have done most of my reading and most of my studying from it and I have yet to find anything really wrong with it. It is the true Word of God still. I believe the New International Version is still very good. There are several top end Bibles that can be trusted. There just happens to be some very bad versions out there as well and I would advise to stick to the more popular and trustworthy Bibles.
If your church or religion uses some version that nobody else uses? Leave that church. I have never found any religion or church that has its own translation that is a good translation. The organizations that have translated the Bible for their own use, usually changed things in the Bible to fit their own beliefs. This is the worst thing any church can do. Every religion should adjust their beliefs to the true Word of God. Never should they adjust the Word of God to fit their beliefs. If its a good translation, there would be other religions using it as well. When an entire religion has their own Bible and no others use it? There is a good reason why they don't use it.
Overall, the King James is a great Bible. I personally don't want to be held up by trying to understand the way they spoke in 1611. I find it better to trust one of the other great translations like (NASB), so I can read it and get a better understanding of what is being said. In any subject you study, you should never trust only one version anyway. If there is any question or debate on a verse, you should look it up and see what other versions say as well. Make sure they all agree. If they don't, then dig into why. Most every subject in the Bible has already been written on multiple times by different opinions. Use those opinions. Google your subject and see what others say and always, always read both sides of every debate and look up every verse they mention and read it in context with the other verses around it. Learn both sides of the story and you give yourself a better chance at finding the truth.