Wasn't the KJV Bible written based on interpretation of the Standard Bible? I thought it was and yet so many say it is the one and only true Bible? ( according to some who are trying to show me my way to God and they are so NOT Catholic)I'm unfamilar with the "Standard Bible." The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says that the KJV, or "Authorized Version" as it was formally so called, was "a revision The of the Bishops' Bible, begun in 1604, and published Authorized in 1611" (here). The Encarta Encyclopedia says it is "a new revision of the English Bible" (here). The Christian Cyclopedia says that "The version is essentially a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1572" (here). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia tells us that "On the title-page as issued in 1611 the version is described as 'newly translated out of the original tongues' and as 'appointed to be read in churches,' two statements not easy to reconcile with the actual facts. The first rule for the revisers' guidance provided that the work was to consist in a revision of the Bishops' Bible: it was not said that it was to be a new translation" (here).
From all this, we can easily discern that it was a revision of the Bishops' Bible. It was not a new translation of the original languages, and it was certainly not the first English translation of the Bible. The links provided make this abundantly clear (see also this and this).
However, people still claim that it is the "best" English translation of the Bible that we have. Personally, I don't agree. I give it credit for the amazing impact it had and continues to have on the English-speaking world, but I hardly venerate it to the same degree that many fundamentalist Christians do. Some even go so far as to say that it is an "inspired translation" and the only Bible that Christians should use. In order to refute this "KJV-onlyism," it is helpful to point out the many errors found in it, especially in the original 1611 version. Here are two links that are helpful in that regard: