Bible versions-Is there only one?

I’m redeemed through the blood of Jesus. And you? Of course you are.

There are many translations and revised versions of Bible’s(NIV, Amplified, King James, Living Translation, AS). Did any of these lose essential Biblical meanings and teachings via the translation process? If so, which ones? If true, should those versions be avoided by Believers?

Yes!
And I got that information from the NIV.

I’m redeemed through the blood of Jesus. And you? Of course you are.

Yes there is a timeline of Bibles and all influences the next. But that is the point. I know some people who believe the KJV is the closest to the original language just because they believe it is the oldest English translation we have.

Which is easily proven false.

The new and improved NIV has corrected many verses to match the KJV, but still is greatly lacking.

Methinks thou art girt about the paps with a cult doctrine.

The better question is, who believes they can hold God’s word in their hands to read and study?

As the Ephesians 1:7 states as well, the same issue of why is the same as the other, not every mentioning of salvation in the Bible has to include the blood

Not sure what you mean by that.

If by cult doctrine you mean Bible believer, every word? Yes! I wish you had a Bible you could trust.

I have a KJV Bible. Can't I trust it?

Do you have access to God’s word? To study and read? If so, where?

I have to admit to having some affinity for the language of the KJV, the more formal terms like thee and thou....to me they add weight and signficance to the words I'm reading or saying. A great example of this is the 23rd Psalm. To me the meaning is the same whether its the KJ, Revised Standard, or likely any other...but words like:

"He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness..." I find the language more reverant. However there's no real difference with the RSV's: "he restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness..."

Of course it may be that I'm just old, but the language of the KJ.....it just strikes me as Biblical, set apart from every day language.

There's another aspect to the KJV, for those who like to preach against things....the word abomination is most prevalent in the King James. The RSV uses words like detestable instead....and while abomination and detestable mean the same thing, abomination sounds so much more fire and brimstone.

Of course that's simply outdated language and that has zero bearing on any degree of spirituality.
Also there was a time when that Was common language, so the notion that it's less common language also means nothing.
Debating over two words of the same meaning but one "sounding" more severe does not make one more valid than the other.
Lastly the KJV language is not biblical. Biblical language was Not English, in any form. All of your reasonings are purely superficial and require your subjective opinion. There is not a single spiritual basis for anything you stated.

Thank you for your opinion.

Of course I do just as you do. I know where this going. I prefer the NIV as that’s what I always used.

What in your opinion is the only valid Bible?

Me as well. For 31 years I've used the NIV. I first got it because I find the KJV too awkward for deep study.
I have some other translations for reference too but the NIV has always been my favourite.

Oh no! Don't encourage him!