Which Bible to purchase?

With respect, Lucy-P is showing no rancor towards "people who prefer the KJV above all the others" but rather towards people who perpetuate the misguided KJV-only propaganda. Conflate the two, and you're misunderstanding the issues.

And yet you seem pretty hateful of those of us who prefer the KJV above all the others.

Evidenced by calling us a "cult".

If that is so, my apologies to her.

Oh dear. Then I'm sorry too. I cannot delete my previous post.

Just so we are clear I will reaffirm that I'm not attempting to stop Christians from using the KJV.
I even consult it myself at times. It's a perfectly good Bible translation to read & study.

I'm simply fed-up with having my preferred versions called corrupt here. Especially since I've wasted a lot of time researching because of these accusations. I can't agree that the arguments against all the modern translations are valid. I've been down some rabbit holes over this regarding certain translators, methods & manuscripts and I'm satisfied that the translations I use are of good quality.

I have many different bibles.
The kjv is imo the best.

I have a greek nt (received text interlinear)

If you compare the kjv to the greek,it is almost word for word.

If you are pickled in the bible,and someone is reading from the niv,you will wonder where is that in the bible?

I do not prefer niv,but if folks like it, so be it.

Once you get a good toe hold in the greek,you will never use an niv as a primary.
I keep my niv,strictly for comparison to areas that are a mystery.

With respect, some of your reasoning is circular, though you may not realize it.

The "received text" (also known as the Textus Receptus) is the eclectic Greek text which was the primary source for the KJV, so it is no surprise that its interlinear version would be very similar to the KJV.

If you are familiar with any translation, and someone reads from a different translation, especially one translated from different source material, you may have trouble finding the passage. That is as true for an NIV reader hearing the KJV as it is for a KJV reader hearing the NIV.

I have heard others state that because they know Greek, they would never use the KJV "as a primary". I think some of it boils down to familiarity.

We do not have the originals .

The textus receptus is about the best we have.

The Alexandrian was rejected early.

There is something interesting in a presentation by Chuck missler .

The code,found in the greek is in perfect harmony.

Which,as you say,is reflected in the kjv.

I am centered there.

When I saw that presentation by missler I stopped wondering.

(It is not there in the niv)

The other thing is that there is a supernatural component I personally find in the kjv.

It is a power. The arrangement packs a power do not find in other translations.

It would be wonderful if we had the exact words.

(Ancient greek and Hebrew are slightly different)

I'm sorry that the word of God doesn't resonate with you in modern English. To me it's powerful.
There is certainly no absence of The Holy Spirit's presence with me as I read from the NIV, NASB or CSB.
In former years- BC (Before Computers) I even studied, using my NIV along with a KJV & NKJV reader.
We encountered no friction & no arguments.

When you are speaking of Greek codes you must be referring exclusively to the NT.
The King James OT is based mostly on the Hebrew of the Masoretic.

Chuck Missler was a good teacher in many respects & as I remember he always used to advise to test his teachings.
He would say not to take his word for everything. He did teach with a great deal of material that was not his own
but compiled from older studies.

The KJV only cult is looming, one has swooped in for a test attack run.

The NASB is very word for word accurate, bit it's not an easy reader.
The ESV, is every accurate word for word but is much easier to read.
My Opinion, is go to the Bible store and pick out a few of the hardest passages and read them in the NASB, and in the ESV and see which one you like best. But my opinion is just that an opinion.

My favorite "carrying" Bible (English) right now is one I bought from Schuyler Publishers. It is a New American Standard, small, and light-weight. It has few added notes and no concordance, but I was looking for a "small, light-weight" Bible when I bought it because I am old and getting older. While it has a few maps in the back, I leave the notes and concordances up to my "at home" Bibles. They are necessary (for me) but hard for me to use.

The pages can handle my note-writing, but I have to be careful about what pens I can use in it to write notes. (I have tried using colored mechanical pencils, but within months, their writing fades badly. I have tried colored mechanical pens made for Bibles and am very unimpressed by them.) I use Pilot G-2 0.32 colored pens, never any other pen for me because all I have tried show through the pages.

Whenever I buy a new Bible, to decide what pens/pencils/highlighters to use in that Bible, I try them out on the last note page in that Bible. That not only helps me decide what to use, but it also leaves me a record of which utensils worked, which did not, and why by a quick mere glance.

They did, but those books were not included in their Bible. They were actually separate TOMES (not to be confused with Biblical books). I believe the Pearl of Great Price started as a newsletter or something, and the Doctrines and Covenants are again in their own tomes.

There were also some Joseph Smith translations of other books in the actual Bible. I can't remember if they were kept in a separate tome or not. Frankly, for organizational reasons I like to keep things separate, which is why I was worried that they had integrated some of the interpretations into the actual Bible verses, as opposed to just having a short outline paragraph before the chapter summarizing what they believe it to be about and how they believe it ties to their Doctrine.

Again, I'd like to thank everyone for their input and time on this question. I may start with a KJV or KJV 2000 copy as the primary, since I already have one anyway (and the preference is a hand sized book) and then may begin reading the NIV as well.

I have a goal this year to actually sit down and read ALL of the Bible from start to finish (the furthest I got was either Leviticus or Numbers and just sort of got bogged and eaten there).

I did manage to read the entire book of Mormon in four days, so I know I am capable of having the attention span now to sit and read.
I know in the past I've read Acts and the four gospels that were witnesses to the life of Jesus. I've had various study sessions of other books too, and done quizzing but that was like. 25+ years ago.

Hence why I'm going with a portable physical copy. Find a nice quiet coffee shop free of distractions.

At least until the scones arrive.

Sorry to seem so OCD about details. When it comes to literature or data I tend to be picky about wanting the original work, because in my mind that is what I am seeking.

(Would love to learn Hebrew and Greek and try to read the untranslated works).

Maybe one day. Assuming we don't have a Rapture or Second Coming in the next 1 to 10 years.

I guess then I wouldn't need to worry, I could just as Christ for His approved copy haha.

As an aside, as an ex-Mormon, you may be interested in the work of Dr. James White. He has written on many apologetics topics including Mormonism, and has produced an excellent, fair-minded study on Bible translation issues: The King James Only Controversy. Look for the second edition.

The Bibles you rage against aren't corrupt.

If it contains one untruth then it is corrupt. Unfortunately, the new versions contain many untruths which make them corrupt. There's no such thing as a better than most bible. It is the word of God and can be trusted, or it is not the word of God and cannot be trusted. A faithful witness will not lie.