No, there are many many many other translations of the bible that you can use. Just pay careful attention to the fact that Hebrew and Greek cannot be translated perfectly into English, and even in the King James version, not all the words are going to be perfectly translated. Some of the meaning is going to be lost in translation, no matter what version you choose to use.

Well given any bible you use incl. King James version has a lot missing it really will not matter.

i don't think so. tater tot has already covered this - one translation will never be perfectly accurate since some words simply do not translate. i think you need to read several translations of a word to get a proper feel for it's meaning.

The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Therefore, English (King James or other) is not one of the original languages of the Bible. Therefore, all English translations of the Bible will suffer somewhat from differences in languages, differences in idiomatic expressions, etc. Different translations tend to aim for either word for word (more difficult to understand) or thought for thought (less "accurate") representation of the original language. Most translations (including the King James version) substitute "inaccurate" translations of certain words so that the thought will be understandable to our culture. For example, Revelation 2:231 contains the Greek word nephros, which literally means "kidneys." However, the English sounds pretty weird when Jesus says, "...I am He who searches the kidneys and hearts..." The word refers to the deepest emotions and affections of man,2 and is more understandable in our culture when translated as "thoughts" or "mind." Source: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/kingjames.html

I do not think so. Three of the oldest manuscripts, the Sinaitic, Alexandrian, and the Vatican 1209 were not available to the King James translators. King James also had 15 rules that limited the freedom of those on the committee for him to authorize it. There are some spurious verses such as the one added at 1Jn 5:7,8, which came from a 16th century version of the Latin Vulgate. It uses the English form of God's name at Ex 6:3, Ps 83:18 Is 12:2, Is 26:4, but has no preface like modern translations to let you know the difference between LORD and Lord such as mentioned together at Ps 110:1 and who they are. At the end of Marks book, Mr 16:9-20 is another spurious addition of which modern translations will tell you was not in the older manuscripts, but with no footnote, has led some to handle serpents and drink poison to prove they believe which contradicts Mt 4:7. Then we have the changes in the English language in the last 400 years. For example what do we think of when we hear of a shambles? Read 1Cor 10:25 in the KJ and then read it in a modern translation. We see it meant a meat market, where as today we commonly think of a shambles as something in complete disorder like an old worn out building.

By no means. It is probably still the most readily available and commonly used translation IN ENGLISH. But that does not necessarily best (though I prefer it) much less the only acceptable translation. - And it is useless to those who do not read English. They should use a translation into their own language.

I say throw em' all out.