The KJV is not the best (or ONLY) version of the Christian Bible

Con's round 2 argument is in the comments. I would like to begin by addressing some of the things con has said. He claims that the KJV was made with the puritans in mind, and that they brought the KJV with them to America. First of all, the Geneva Bible was the Bible the puritans used, as it featured clear Calvinistic teachings in its notes. King James, to combat this, decreed that there not be any notes in his Bible. Also, after his version was published, he made it a felony to be found with a copy of the Geneva Bible. While the term "puritan" is a bit of a generalized term, the group on the Mayflower did indeed bring with them the Geneva Bible. Every history I've found says this, except for in those websites where the authors are clearly fundamentalist. Yes, the KJV was written with the puritans in mind, mainly because the king wanted them silenced. Con also spends much of his argument praising the KJV for the wonder that was at those times and still is today. Here I do agree. The KJV was indeed a great achievement and well represents the oppressive government in England from which the American forefathers fought to separate. It's ironic then that the KJV, written by the powers of the Church of England, was the most popular version in the Americas for a few centuries. While the KJV can (and should, in my opinion) be appreciated for the book that it is, doing so does not mean that it is a viable source to be used in the study of Scripture. For those who are interested in the so-called "Word of God", the KJV is not the book to which they should go. In the last round, I gave a brief overview of the makings of the Greek text behind the KJV. Now I would like to get more in-depth with the actual words of the Bible. As far as the Tanach, or "Old Testament", is concerned, I have no problem with the Hebrew text behind the KJV. It is the Masoretic Text, of which the Dead Sea Scrolls have mostly confirmed. Many of the newer Bibles base some of their readings off of the Greek Septuagint, a manuscript that is flawed in many ways. On the plus side of that, these translations usually have notes that usually point out the readings of the Masoretic Text. I say the the Septuagint is flawed because of how it was created. It's very unfortunate that the majority of quotes the NT writers use from Scripture are from the Greek Septuagint, because this has led to some awful doctrine. But that is for another debate. My 2 problems with the KJV's Old Testament deals with 1) how it is not only based upon the Masoretic Text but also the Latin Vulgate and other previous translations; and 2) how poorly it is translated. Here follows some examples of the second problem: In Isaiah 14, we find a "proverb against the king of Babylon" (vs.4), yet for some reason, many pastors teach that this is about the devil. In verse 12 we see the name "Lucifer", the only time such a name appears in the Bible. Now pick up any other modern translation and see that the name is not there. The Hebrew word (not a name) used there is HEYLEL, and it refers to the planet Venus, or "the morning star". "Lucifer" comes from the Latin Vulgate (not the Hebrew) word "lucifer" (lowercase) which refers, again, to the morning star, the planet Venus. It is a title of position, as one who shines the brightest in the sky, save for the sun which represents God. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus is given this title as being the brightest below God. To be fair, all other translations before the KJV also read "Lucifer", but it is correct not to use that name in the Bible. Therefore, the idea of the chief devil being named Lucifer is wrong. In the same passage, we see in verses 9 and 15 that the king of Babylon is on his way to "hell", since he is obviously not in God's favor. However, the Hebrew word used here is SHEOL, which refers not to a place of eternal punishment, but the mass grave where everyone goes when they die. It's translated as "hell" here to help with that particular false doctrine. SHEOL is in the Hebrew of the OT sixty-five times; it is translated "hell" thirty-one times, "the grave" thirty-one times, and "the pit" three times. It's translated as "hell" only when referring to the death of a bad person. Obviously, church doctrine has played a large part in the way the Bible has been translated. The KJV also follows a tradition of great offence as it renders the Hebrew name of God, YHWH, as "the LORD" almost 7,000 times. God says to Moses in Exodus 3:15, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: 'YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob has sent me to you.' This is My name forever and this is My title from generation to generation." But how many people who say they follow after God actually attempt to use his name? The Jews stopped using it a couple millennia ago because they feared using it in vain, so they began using the Hebrew ADONAI (lord) in place of His name in their readings. The KJV does use the rendering "Jehovah" for the name several times, but that is a faulty rendering of the name--there were no J or V sounds in ancient Hebrew. "Yahweh" is closer to the original pronunciation, though it also may be wrong. And speaking of God's name, KJV incorrectly has God say in Ex. 3:14 "I AM THAT I AM", which really makes no sense. It is a better translation to say "I AM WHO I AM", or even "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE". Another translation may be "I am the existing Being which is the existing Being". In other words, of all the gods that Moses from Egypt knew of, YHWH is the one who actually exists. Therefore, why did he have to have a name for Moses to use if He is the only true God? But he supplied one anyway to placate Moses. (Sadly, Marauder, II Kings 2:23-25 is correct. The Hebrew words used refer to young boys in age from infancy to adolescence.) My knowledge of the Old Testament is limited, as my main area of study is the New Testament, particularly the book of Mark, which I have been translating for some time. As such, I'd rather be there. As many of us know, the books of Matthew and Luke drew their material either from Mark or from a shared source with Mark. Yet there are some places where Mark volunteers extra info that isn't included in the other books. In the KJV of Mark 1:2 we see "As it is written in the prophets...". This phrase comes from a "corrected reading". All of the oldest sources instead say something like, "Just as it was written in the prophet Isaiah..." Now the problem with that is the fact that one of the two verses next quoted is not from Isaiah but instead looks like a mishmash of Mal 3:1 and Exod 23:20. It appears that somewhere along the line, certain scribes thought to change the wording of Mark to hide the obvious error. Most modern versions go with the oldest readings, regardless of Mark's mistake. The Textus Receptus, and therefore the KJV, have things that were copied between the gospels to make them more consistant. The so-called Lord's prayer, for example, differs more in the older texts than in the TR. In John 1:18, the TR refers to Jesus as the "only begotten son"; the oldest manuscripts read "only begotten god". I plan to talk more about this in another debate. In John 5:3-4, the TR adds a part about an angel coming to stir the water. Speaking of angels, the texts behind the KJV add Luke 22:43-44 where it talks about an angel coming to Jesus and his sweat being blood. The oldest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20. This section was added to create a more satisfying ending to the book, and it draws upon material from other books. As such, I wouldn't drink poison or handle vipers because of what's written here. I'm running out of room, so I'll cease for now. But first: Have you noticed that most KJV Bibles don't contain notes about variances in the text, while most modern Bibles have translation notes pointing to the alternative readings found in the Textus Receptus. Why do you think that is?