Easy question as far as I am concerned (I don’t expect anyone to agree – this is just my humble opinion on the matter) except is probably better to ask; which Bibles are the wrong ones?
Now we know the root of all evil is the love of money from the bible (all translations say this). So the answer has to be, the wrong bible is any bible that was ‘re-translated’, and the text altered enough in order to obtain a copyright (the text must be a certain percentage different from the original text one is ‘translating’ from in order to obtain a copyright so you can sell the text) so it could be sold to the masses to make $$. Any bible in my opinion created this way, will fall prey to errors and problems simply because where there is money involved, there are personal agendas, financial issues and deadlines.
This is quite amusing (and worrying at the same time), since it actually means the translators must actively set about changing the words enough to obtain a copyright, and find new words to try to replace the old words that express the same idea or doctrine or historical event as in the previous translation that one is using as a base text – just so they can get a license to print yet another version of the best selling book in the world! Good for business – bad for translating and everyone that reads it.
Secondly I find it amusing that some modern Christians look at the KJV translators – 50+ of them all accountable to each other and the king – as if they were like country bumpkins, a drink or pipe in one hand, pen in the other, when in reality these men were extremely intelligent and learned, and being under the Kings’ and all the other translators eyes (who did in fact have differing opinions as you would expect) – would simply not have been able to get away with inserting their own agendas, and having no issue of copyright to worry about (the Devil just loves to tie everything up with money, whereas God likes to give His gifts away free) were free to choose the very best words and sentences. Genius! Not so with modern translations, their copyright and financial issues.
Now to the question of the 1611 or the 1629 versions of the King James Bible. First neither of these were translated and edited for the purpose of selling and making money. Second the question of which one? Again a very simple answer. The translation that came later, since the scholars clearly found printing mistakes that were made in 1611. Do many people realise how complex and prone to error type setting used to be – a printing without a mistake would be completely unexpected.
So am I King James only? Yes and no. If I want the true meaning of what the Bible says I will take the time to research and work out what the King James is saying. But before I get there, I may sometimes read some of the newer translations, just to get some sort of handle on the context and get the basic modern english in context. Having done that however – when I then go back to the King James and do my research as to what the KJV is saying with this fresh perspective of what the new version is saying, I often find the new version (NIV particularly good at not just contradicting other bibles but more alarmingly itself) is in many cases saying the same, or, something either contradictory, completely different and sometimes even THE opposite. And we all know there are great chunks of text missing altogether from some modern versions.
Also – I would hand any modern version to a new believer but with a warning (that I wish I’d been given after years of being perplexed and weakened in my faith after finding many contradictions (of itself even) in the NIV); to understand the issue of obtaining copyrights to sell bibles has to, and does affect the text and its meaning.
So in summary – I don’t expect people to agree with me, this is just the experience I have had. I will read the new versions ONLY to quickly grasp one meaning in modern english, but knowing full well that the meaning may turn out to have been totally different to the King James.
Note; people often say that the new bible versions came about to update the English. True in many cases, but what many people don’t know is that the KJV translators by that time already spoke a more modern english, but chose to keep the older english since it is a more descriptive and accurate language. For instance the old english would allow differentiation between a person say ‘you’ – when speaking to a single person, and ‘you’ when speaking to a group of people. Not important? I think it is, as all these little nuances add to the better understanding of the circumstances that the text is describing.