I'll stick with my KJV.
11 Tests for any Bible.
Let's Compare Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Most of the new translations have attacked the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ by substituting the word "virgin" with "young woman" or "maiden." A young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin. Mary, the mother of Jesus, WAS a virgin. In fact, Matthew tells us so in Matthew 1:23, when he QUOTES Isaiah 7:14 and uses the word "VIRGIN." What does YOUR translation say in Isaiah 7:14?
Let's Compare Luke 2:33
"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
The King James credits Mary with being the mother of Jesus, but does NOT refer to Joseph as His father. However, many new versions imply that Joseph WAS the father of Jesus by changing out the word "Joseph" with the word "father."
Let's Compare Acts 20:28
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Many of the new versions attack the Blood Atonement of Christ in this verse by OMITTING the word "blood." Does your's? The Blood Atonement is a MUST for anyone to be saved (Matthew 26:28; Revelation 1:5; Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22), yet the new versions are taking it out of the Bible!
Let's Compare Colossians 1:14
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
It is THROUGH THE BLOOD that we have remission of sins, but most new versions completely OMIT "blood" from the text. What about YOUR version?
Let's Compare Daniel 3:25
"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
This is one of the great Old Testament verses which magnifies the Lord Jesus Christ. As you can see, the verse says that the Son of God, which is Jesus Christ, actually appeared in the fiery furnace nearly 600 years before He was actually physically born. This shows us that Jesus Christ is ETERNAL. He is DEITY, a member of the Holy Trinity, the "Son of God." So the King James Bible EXALTS Jesus Christ.
However, if you have a new translation you may have trouble finding the "Son of God" in the passage, for many have changed it to read "a son of the gods," or something similar. Does your translation magnify the Lord Jesus Christ by properly referring to Him as the "Son of God," or does it pervert the text with pagan nonsense?
Let's Compare Micah 5:2
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting."
The King James gives us the superior reading by telling us that Christ is from "everlasting." That is, He is eternal, as we've already seen.
Do the new versions contain this reading? No, most of them do not. Some say that He's from "ancient times," and others say that He's from "days of old," but these terms do not imply that Jesus is Deity. The term "everlasting" DOES imply Deity. The King James is SUPERIOR, for it EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ.
Let's Compare Luke 23:42
"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
In this particular case, the dying thief is being saved. Romans 10:13 tells us that we are saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord," and this man addresses Jesus as "Lord." The new versions, however, rob Jesus of His Lordship by stealing the word "Lord" from the text! Is your version guilty or innocent?
Let's Compare Matthew 6:13
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
The King James says that the POWER, the KINGDOM, and the GLORY belong to God, but many new translations omit these important words. Does yours?
Let's Compare Revelation 11:17
"Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned."
This verse reminds us that Jesus is COMING AGAIN, or at least it does in the King James. In many versions (or perhaps we should say "perversions") the words "art to come" have been taken out of the text.
Let's Compare I Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
This verse tells us that Jesus Christ walked on this earth as"God" in the flesh. We know this is true, for "Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) means "God with us." So it is correct to say that "God was manifest in the flesh." Do the new versions say this? No, most do not. Most new versions have taken the word "God" out of the verse and used the word "he" in it's place. As you can see, this is a much weaker reading.
Let's Compare II Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
This is probably the greatest verse in the New Testament on Bible Study. Naturally, the new translation editors couldn't resist the temptation to change it. The word "Study" has been omitted by most all new versions. Does II Timothy 2:15 in your version tell you to "study," or has the verse been butchered to pieces by Satan's scribes?
The King James Bible is based on over FIVE THOUSAND pieces of manuscript evidence, which is NINETY-FIVE percent of all manuscript evidence available. The new perversions (all of them) are based on the remaining FIVE percent.