Other translations are corrupted ?

One can certainly make this claim, but it rests on theological and historical assumptions that don’t withstand scrutiny.

The King James Only movement exists along a spectrum, ranging from “The KJV is the best translation and I prefer it” to the extreme position that “The KJV is itself the inspired word of God and all other translations are not only incorrect but active attempts to undermine the KJV and therefore God’s work.”[1] Those holding the most extreme version would indeed argue that only the KJV represents God’s Word while other translations are corrupted.

However, this position faces substantial difficulties. The KJV’s underlying text, the Textus Receptus, was based on relatively few manuscripts, while the discovery of various long-lost biblical manuscripts has questioned the authenticity of these foundational texts.[2] If the KJV alone preserved God’s Word perfectly, why would earlier manuscripts—closer to the originals—sometimes differ from it?

When modern texts move away from the KJV and the Textus Receptus, King James Only advocates often charge such alterations as doctrinally significant corruptions.[2] Yet even in contested passages like 1 Timothy 3:16, where modern texts replace “God” with “who,” many scholars continue viewing the modern reading as advancing a high view of Christology, though King James Only evangelicals persist in attacking the revision as denying Christ’s divinity.[2]

The fundamental problem is conflating translation preference with textual purity. One can reasonably prefer the KJV’s literary beauty and theological tradition without claiming it uniquely preserves God’s Word. The claim that other translations are “corrupted” typically means they differ from the Textus Receptus—not that they contradict the original languages or distort essential doctrine. This distinction matters: disagreement about manuscript sources differs fundamentally from corruption of Scripture’s core message.

[1] J. Harold Ellens, Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [3 Volumes] (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2013). [See here.]
[2] Jason A. Hentschel, “The King James Only Movement,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America, ed. Paul C. Gutjahr, Oxford Handbooks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 231–232.